The bullet hole near the neck lines

[David G. Healy]

Pat wrote:

[...]

There is a Doug Horne memo that tracks the camera turned over by the military and the shenanigans engaged by the HSCA to hide this camera (that is, Blakey). 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".

Doug answered questions [on this forum] many months back -- maybe he'd do so again? If no one can find him Pat -- there is someone you know of [possibly know because of your vicinity], and someone I know, who can!

Of course Doug Horne has a bit more knowledge of the Z-film and the Zavada report than anyone here or at the 6th floor museum

[Bill Miller]

Pat - you may find this intgeresting ... it can be found on Lancer's forum.

Autopsy personnel were FORCED to sign off authenticating

the material. Proof of it is in the ARRB testimonies of the two

autopsy photographers, Floyd Riebe and John Stringer. Counsel Jeremy Gunn read the affidavit that each signed stating that the

material in the autopsy is authentic, as far as their personal knowledge is concerned.

Riebe told Gunn that he signed it, although it was incorrect(ARRB deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, May 7, 1997, p. 54). When Gunn asked him why he signed it, Riebe told him that "We was shown

this and told to sign it and that was it." (ARRB deposition of Floyd

Albert Riebe, May 7, 1997, p. 53)

John Stringer told Gunn a very similar story. Gunn read the

affidavit that Stringer signed aloud and asked Stringer if he saw that.

Stringer: Yes

Gunn: Is it your understanding that the statement is incorrect?

Stringer: Well, yes......

Gunn: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78, were you intending

to either agree or disagree with the conclusion reached in the second to last--next to last sentence?

Stringer: I told him that I disagreed with him, but they said, 'Sign it.'

Gunn: And who is 'they' who said 'Sign it?'

Stringer: Captain Stover (Stringer's superior, the Commanding Officer of U.S. Naval Medical School) (ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 16, 1996, p. 136-137)

So we have two autopsy personnel who signed off the autopsy

materials as being authentic, although they did not believe this to

be the case. When they refused to do so, they were ordered to sign

the affidavit. Doesn't sound too convincing to me that the autopsy

materials in question were indeed authentic if Riebe's and Stringer's

superiors had to twist their arms to force them to sign the document.

One has to seriously look at the possibility that Humes, Boswell,

and Finck were given an affidavit and told to sign it like Riebe and

Stringer were.

Bill C

There are all kinds of problems with the "official" autopsy

photographs. First of all, the photographs were NOT authenticated

by the HSCA, even though it publicly proclaimed it did so.

The HSCA admitted that its authentication was not quite complete: "Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate

the camera and lens that were used to take these autopsy photographs,

the photographic panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to

the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry." (HSCA, VI 226, footnote # 1)

However, the camera that was used was indeed found, as Doug Horne of the ARRB was to reveal after he found a suppressed HSCA file

detailing that the Department of Defense had sent the autopsy camera

to the HSCA for study. (Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy

and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4)

It was revealed by Horne that HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey

had a problem. Blakey, in a letter to the Secretary of Defense explained: "Our photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take JFK's autopsy pictures." (Unanswered

Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4)

The HSCA was less than honest with the American public here,

Jim. While it publicly claimed the original autopsy camera could not be found, the suppressed document tells us that the autopsy camera was indeed found, sent to the HSCA for testing, and it was

determined by the HSCA's own photographic experts that IT COULDN'T

BE MATCHED TO KENNEDY'S AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS!!

Oh, by the way, the Department of Defense told Blakey that

the camera that was sent to the HSCA for testing "was the only camera in use at the National Naval Medical Center in 1963." (Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4).

Would you want to base your conclusions about the autopsy

photographs being genuine when even the HSCA couldn't authenticate them,

and tried to keep it a secret from the American public? If it wasn't for the work of Doug Horne and the ARRB, we might never have

known about this little charade Blakey tried to pull. Thus, the argument for

photographic doctoring is not out of the realm of possibility here.

Bill C.

[Pat Speer]

Pat - you may find this intgeresting ... it can be found on Lancer's forum.

Autopsy personnel were FORCED to sign off authenticating

the material. Proof of it is in the ARRB testimonies of the two

autopsy photographers, Floyd Riebe and John Stringer. Counsel Jeremy Gunn read the affidavit that each signed stating that the

material in the autopsy is authentic, as far as their personal knowledge is concerned.

Riebe told Gunn that he signed it, although it was incorrect(ARRB deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, May 7, 1997, p. 54). When Gunn asked him why he signed it, Riebe told him that "We was shown

this and told to sign it and that was it." (ARRB deposition of Floyd

Albert Riebe, May 7, 1997, p. 53)

John Stringer told Gunn a very similar story. Gunn read the

affidavit that Stringer signed aloud and asked Stringer if he saw that.

Stringer: Yes

Gunn: Is it your understanding that the statement is incorrect?

Stringer: Well, yes......

Gunn: When you signed this document, Exhibit 78, were you intending

to either agree or disagree with the conclusion reached in the second to last--next to last sentence?

Stringer: I told him that I disagreed with him, but they said, 'Sign it.'

Gunn: And who is 'they' who said 'Sign it?'

Stringer: Captain Stover (Stringer's superior, the Commanding Officer of U.S. Naval Medical School) (ARRB deposition of John T. Stringer, July 16, 1996, p. 136-137)

So we have two autopsy personnel who signed off the autopsy

materials as being authentic, although they did not believe this to

be the case. When they refused to do so, they were ordered to sign

the affidavit. Doesn't sound too convincing to me that the autopsy

materials in question were indeed authentic if Riebe's and Stringer's

superiors had to twist their arms to force them to sign the document.

One has to seriously look at the possibility that Humes, Boswell,

and Finck were given an affidavit and told to sign it like Riebe and

Stringer were.

Bill C

There are all kinds of problems with the "official" autopsy

photographs. First of all, the photographs were NOT authenticated

by the HSCA, even though it publicly proclaimed it did so.

The HSCA admitted that its authentication was not quite complete: "Because the Department of Defense was unable to locate

the camera and lens that were used to take these autopsy photographs,

the photographic panel was unable to engage in an analysis similar to

the one undertaken with the Oswald backyard pictures that was designed to determine whether a particular camera in issue had been used to take the photographs that were the subject of inquiry." (HSCA, VI 226, footnote # 1)

However, the camera that was used was indeed found, as Doug Horne of the ARRB was to reveal after he found a suppressed HSCA file

detailing that the Department of Defense had sent the autopsy camera

to the HSCA for study. (Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy

and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4)

It was revealed by Horne that HSCA Chief Counsel Robert Blakey

had a problem. Blakey, in a letter to the Secretary of Defense explained: "Our photographic experts have determined that this camera, or at least the particular lens and shutter attached to it, could not have been used to take JFK's autopsy pictures." (Unanswered

Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4)

The HSCA was less than honest with the American public here,

Jim. While it publicly claimed the original autopsy camera could not be found, the suppressed document tells us that the autopsy camera was indeed found, sent to the HSCA for testing, and it was

determined by the HSCA's own photographic experts that IT COULDN'T

BE MATCHED TO KENNEDY'S AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS!!

Oh, by the way, the Department of Defense told Blakey that

the camera that was sent to the HSCA for testing "was the only camera in use at the National Naval Medical Center in 1963." (Unanswered Questions Raised by the HSCA's Analysis and Conclusions Regarding the Camera Identified by the Navy and the Department of Defense as the Camera Used at President Kennedy's Autopsy, page 4).

Would you want to base your conclusions about the autopsy

photographs being genuine when even the HSCA couldn't authenticate them,

and tried to keep it a secret from the American public? If it wasn't for the work of Doug Horne and the ARRB, we might never have

known about this little charade Blakey tried to pull. Thus, the argument for

photographic doctoring is not out of the realm of possibility here.

Bill C.

I agree with pretty much everything in this post. There is reason to be concerned about the authenticity of the autopsy materials. Which is precisely what suckered me into researching just what the materials revealed, if one were to take them at face value. I fully expected they'd show what Baden, Canning, Guinn, etc. said they did, but was shocked to find out they did not. If one takes them at face value, and looks to see what is likely to have happened, one sees a conspiracy is likely. If one takes the evidence, and approaches it with the attitude that if it's possible Oswald did it alone, then he MUST have done it alone, one can ALMOST make a case that that is what happened. But it is not the rational explanation, and it is inconsistent with the research and writings of men like Fisher, Spitz, Coe, Guinn, etc. These men had reason to believe the single-bullet theory was b.s., and chose instead to stick their heads in the sand. Their attitude seems to be that if they couldn't figure out exacty what happened, then it was their obligation to spin the evidence to say that Oswald did it alone. I consider them cowards, more than I consider them conspirators.

As far as the camera, the key for me is that the HSCA experts determined that the lens couldn't have taken the pictures. While I know little about photography, I found a book on press photography that described the field of vision of Graphic View cameras. When I looked at the mystery photo, I realized that the photo was inconsistent with that camera with that lens IF the photo was taken of Kennedy's forehead, but consistent if the photo was taken from behind. It seemed likely to me then that the camera was rejected because it proved the mystery photo was taken from behind. If the mystery photo was taken from behind, of course, then the beveled piece of bone determined by the FPP to be near the temple instead becomes a beveled piece of bone by the cowlick. I'm sure this scared the crap out of the HSCA as this would place an EXIT where they said there was an entrance! In sum, I think they hid the camera because they were afraid it would convince people that a shot came from the front, not because it showed the photos were fake.

As far as authentification, I believe Stringer ended up swearing by the autopsy photos, but was concerned that one or more photos are missing. He refused to swear by the brain photos, however.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Doug answered questions [on this forum] many months back -- maybe he'd do so again? If no one can find him Pat -- there is someone you know of [possibly know because of your vicinity], and someone I know, who can!

Of course Doug Horne has a bit more knowledge of the Z-film and the Zavada report than anyone here or at the 6th floor museum

I contacted Lifton a few weeks ago to see if we could engage in a dialogue about some of the issues. For fairly obvious reasons, he's not particularly thrilled with my work. He believes we should focus on the fact that the Dallas witnesses remembered the wounds differently than the Bethesda witnesses. He still believes the body was altered in transit. When I pointed out that the post Best Evidence release of HSCA testimony shows that many in Bethesda remembered the wounds exactly like the Dallas witnesses, and that this suggests that either the body wasn't changed, or that there was something about human memory that made people remember things incorrectly, he didn't respond.

He did let me know that his Oswald book is almost ready. He also told me that he no longer respects Lancer and that he and Doug Horne want to start a conference of their own. Overall, it was a friendly exchange. He strongly disagrees with what I'm doing. But I guess I should have expected as much.

[Bill Miller]

Oswald being the sole assassin is a myth. For Lee Oswald to have been the lone assassin, then he has to have fired the single bullet that caused all seven wounds to both JFK and Connally. For the single bullet to work ... Connally has to have his right wrist below his right nipple and also to his left of it at Z224. This clip shows that Connally's wrist was to the right and above his right nipple when a bullet ripped through his chest in less than one Zapruder film frame.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

As Connally's lapel rises it causes a shadow to pass over his white shirt cuff, thus making it almost disappear. On a darker version of the Zapruder film the cuff does vanish making it look as though it is below the door frame and out of sight.

In a brighter version of the Zapruder film the cuff can still be seen through the shade of Connally's lapel and as the lapel falls back down, the cuff becomes sunlit once again and is more visible. The white shirt cuff was never below Connally's right nipple, thus when a bullet passed through his body - it could not have caused his wrist wound, which is needed for the single bullet theory to work. This means that yet another shot was fired at some point that caused the wound to Connally's wrist, thus you have a second gunman.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Pat Speer]

My disagreement with Robin's interpretation in Post #63 comes from several sources.

1. The slope of the bone doesn't seem to match the slope of Kennedy's forehead.

2. The scalp is not reflected at the back of the head. Humes said he reflected the scalp back to the area of the cowlick. The doctors also discussed reflecting the scalp around the entrance hole in the hairline.

3. What appears to me to be neck lines is jutting out of the forehead.

4. What appears to me to be a bullet entrance in the hairline is on the left forehead. (Robin explained in a subsequent post that you believe this to be blood.)

5. The frontal bone directly back of Kennedy's forehead appears intact. This is inconsistent with the back of the head photo, the top of the head photo, and the x-rays.

6. The bones low on the back of Kennedy's head appear to have been removed. This is inconsistent with the testimony of the doctors. The brain was pulled from the right side of Kennedy's head not the far back of his head.

7. My analysis of what was believed to have been the camera and lens tell me that the ruler was too small for this photo to have been taken from this angle.

8. Neither the doctors nor photographer John Stringer ever testified to taking a picture of Kennedy's large head wound from the front of the forehead or from the side. Finck, I believe, remembered having one taken of the inside of the skull, which showed the beveling on the bone. This is not that photo.

9. There is a beveled piece of bone at the top of the skull in this interpretation. A beveled exit. The doctors testified that they were unable to find exit beveling near the large defect, and were only able to establish that the large defect was an exit after inspecting the piece of bone discovered by Sam Kinney on the floor of the limo. (I believe the missile creating this exit defect was in fact a piece of a bullet striking Kennedy in the temple, and that this fragment never broke through the skin.)

Edited January 23, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Robin Unger]

Pat .

If you look at the Jack White's image which you have been using to cite area (7)

Take a look at area (5) you will notice that Jack also reffers to the BEVELED hole as one of EXIT.

[Robin Unger]

Some of John Dolvas work defining the make up of the autopsy table.

It shows the series of interconnecting plates which were used to assemble the autopsy table, as well as the numerous drain holes.

I beleive that it may have been a REFLECTION from one of the interconnecting "Stainlees Steel Plates" just above kennedy's head, which was mistaken as a NECK.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Some of John Dolvas work defining the make up of the autopsy table.

It shows the series of interconnecting plates which were used to assemble the autopsy table, as well as the numerous drain holes.

I beleive that it may have been a REFLECTION from one of the interconnecting "Stainlees Steel Plates" just above kennedy's head, which may have been mistaken for a NECK.

Below is a crop from the "Pitzer autopsy" which was performed at Bethesda in the same room as the Kennedy autopsy.

Thanks Allan.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Doug answered questions [on this forum] many months back -- maybe he'd do so again? If no one can find him Pat -- there is someone you know of [possibly know because of your vicinity], and someone I know, who can!

Of course Doug Horne has a bit more knowledge of the Z-film and the Zavada report than anyone here or at the 6th floor museum

I contacted Lifton a few weeks ago to see if we could engage in a dialogue about some of the issues. For fairly obvious reasons, he's not particularly thrilled with my work. He believes we should focus on the fact that the Dallas witnesses remembered the wounds differently than the Bethesda witnesses. He still believes the body was altered in transit. When I pointed out that the post Best Evidence release of HSCA testimony shows that many in Bethesda remembered the wounds exactly like the Dallas witnesses, and that this suggests that either the body wasn't changed, or that there was something about human memory that made people remember things incorrectly, he didn't respond.

He did let me know that his Oswald book is almost ready. He also told me that he no longer respects Lancer and that he and Doug Horne want to start a conference of their own. Overall, it was a friendly exchange. He strongly disagrees with what I'm doing. But I guess I should have expected as much.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

he's not particularly thrilled with my work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those who make their livings by selling "junk bonds", etc; to the unsuspecting public, are generally displeased when more knowledgeable persons refer to them as being "junk"!

Although doubtful that you need my input:------Stick to your facts, as they will eventually open the "full door", and so long as you give the information freely, you provide a service to those who openly and freely search for the facts and truth in the matter.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He believes we should focus on the fact that the Dallas witnesses remembered the wounds differently than the Bethesda witnesses

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could certainly agree with that one! However, had Mr. Lifton followed his own advice, then it is most unlikely that he would have sent a generation of ill-advised persons searching for space alien and/or home grown body kidnappers and wound and evidence alteration specialists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I pointed out that the post Best Evidence release of HSCA testimony shows that many in Bethesda remembered the wounds exactly like the Dallas witnesses, and that this suggests that either the body wasn't changed, or that there was something about human memory that made people remember things incorrectly, he didn't respond.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facts do tend to confuse many persons. Especially when all of their ducks and eggs are out on the limb which has a big sign stating: "BODY KIDNAPPING IN JFK ASSASSINATION"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I guess I should have expected as much

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is generally what occurs when one tells someone else that they are somewhat lost and/or full of BS.

Even when done politely.------------------Which I of course have not learned to do too well!

Your evaluation of the factual evidence as regards the EOP entry is for all practical purposes, an "absolute".

And, in the event that you and/or others will continue to evaluate this single wound, then considerably "new light" will shine on the subject of the JFK assassination and it will open the doorway to many yet understood aspects of the WC.

EXCELLENT WORK Pat!------And as is evident, attaboy's from me are generally slim and none.

[Pat Speer]

Pat .

If you look at the Jack White's image which you have been using to cite area (7)

Take a look at area (5) you will notice that Jack also reffers to the BEVELED hole as one of EXIT.

I agree with Jack's assessment of this photo. There does appear to be an entrance in the scalp near the forehead (4) and a beveled exit in the bone at the back of the head (5). From looking at the other photos and reading the testimony of everyone who saw Kennedy's body, however, I realized that what appears to be a hole in the scalp is most logically where two torn pieces of scalp converge. (Not one witness reported seeing an entrance on Kennedy's face/forehead). Similarly, I realized that the beveled exit in the parietal bone most likely reflects where a bullet fragment broke through the skull, but not the scalp. This position directly underlies the so-called cowlick entrance. If you look at the reflected scalp, in fact, and estimate which part of the scalp overlay the beveled exit, you can see a round mark, but not a hole, where the impact on the underside of the scalp occurred. Not one witness remembered seeing a small round exit in this area. If the beveled exit was part of the larger exit most envision, why are there no tears in the neatly reflected scalp which overlay this exit?)

Edited January 23, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Bill Miller]

Pat Speer writes ...

"If you consulted ballistic and medical experts you'd see that bones don't "spring open" as you've suggested, except in rare cases, usually involving handgun ammunition."

Dr. McClelland's WC testimony:

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent,

Dr. Perry went on to say that Dr. Clark did an examination of the President's head wound. You may recall that Dr. Clark was the neurosurgeon who would have had to fix the skull wound had they stabilized the President's condition.

Dr. Clark: ......... My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed

Dr. CLARK - No, sir. Such a wound could have easily been overlooked in the presence of the much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull

Edited January 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

For anyone to suggest that there was this identical missconception or mass hallucination among so many witnesses as to there being a large avusled wound in the back of President Kennedy's head, thus the autopsy photos must be genuine is an asinine and irresponsible position to take in my view.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination rsearcher/investigator

SSA Clint Hill: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

DP witness Phil Willis: It took the back of his head off

DP witness Marilyn Willis: Matter was coming out the back of his head

Nurse Diana Bowron: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist into it

Nurse Doris Nelson: There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out(when shown the rear of head autopsy photo)

Nurse Pat Hutton: A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.

Dr Malcolm Perry: there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.

Dr Robert McClelland: I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted… we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.

Dr Marion Jenkins: Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound (note "cerebellum", and where it is located)

Dr Ronald Jones: There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

Dr Paul Peters: I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area…we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound

Dr Kemp Clark: I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.

Nurse Audrey Bell: Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital

Nurse Margaret Hinchcliff: the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: The wound was the size of a baseball(photo depicts Crenshaw indicating right rear)

Dr. Kenneth Salyer: This wound extended into the parietal area(a photo depicts Salyer indicating right rear)

Dr. Charles Carrico: There was a large, quite large, defect about here(a photo depicts Carrico indicating right rear)

Aubrey Rike(Oneal Funeral Home, Dallas):You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head

Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe: a big gaping hole in the back of the head

FBI SA Frank O’Neill: a massive wound in the right rear

Petty Officer Saundra Spencer: They had one(autopsy photo) showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. It was just a ragged hole.

Mortician Thomas Robinson: about the size of a small orange…Circular…ragged… directly behind the back of his head…they brought a piece of heavy duty rubber, again to fill this area in the back of the head…it had to be all dried out, packed, and the rubber placed in the hair and the skin pulled back over…and stitched into that piece of rubber.

FBI SA James Sibert: it was a good size, in the back part of the head there. Well, I think about 3 1/2 inches one way then quite a bit the other...they showed the pictures at that deposition that were neat in appearance, and boy, I don't remember anything like that

...but my recollection of the way the head looked is nothing that would appear as this photograph shows. This photograph is too neat. Right back here is where you would have had that massive wound, right in here, and you see that's neat. My thought was that that was probably taken after reconstruction was done... there was a big cavity there. I mean that you could look in to. The skull wasn’t intact, the bones weren’t in place…there definitely was a large cavity. It was just that apparent that there was so much skull missing

[Robin Unger]

HSCA Testimony of Tom Robinson:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image01.htm

Edited January 24, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Pat Speer]

For anyone to suggest that there was this identical missconception or mass hallucination among so many witnesses as to there being a large avusled wound in the back of President Kennedy's head, thus the autopsy photos must be genuine is an asinine and irresponsible position to take in my view.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination rsearcher/investigator

Bill, I've already explained that those who saw this "big hole" at Bethesda were most logically remembering the condition of Kennedy's skull after his brain was removed. In the case of Robinson, this would undoubtedly be true.

As far as the Parkland witnesses, most of whom have admitted they didn't get a very good look, (How could they, when Kennedy was lying on his back?) why do you think so many of them deferred to the accuracy of the photos when shown them? Because they're gutless liars? Because they've been threatened? Couldn't it be because they were never that certain to begin with? When someone says "that's not how I remembered it" that's not the same as saying "these photographs are fraudulent and there's a great big conspiracy to cover up what I saw". What so many researchers fail to grasp IMO is that there WAS a great big hole in Dallas, but it was on the top of Kennedy's head (where, not surprisingly, it could actually have been seen while Kennedy was lying on his back). This hole is also visible in the Zapruder film. And yet how many Parkland witnesses mention this hole????? How many of them told Lifton or Livingstone or whomever that "well, there were TWO large holes--one by the temple and one at the back of Kennedy's head??? I think the answer is zero. Look at McClelland's drawing and find this wound.. To me, the fact that these people saw a hole and the fact there was a hole in the photos, just not where they saw it, indicates that a possible transferrence occurred in their memories. If you read up on memory research and cognition, you'll see that such things happen all the time.

So, my deferrence to the accuracy of the autopsy photos over the traditional CT interpretation of the Parkland witnesses comes from a combination of factors.

1. For the CT interpretation of the Parkland witnesses to be correct, the Zapruder film would have to be faked. There is NO large hole on the back of the head visible in the Zapruder film. If someone thinks there is one, then they are the one hallucinating.

2. For the CT interpretation of the Parkland witnesses to be correct, the autopsy photos would have to have been faked. (Unless the body was kidnapped...)

3. For the CT interpretation of the Parkland witnesses to be correct, the autopsy doctors would have to have lied. (Unless the body was kidnapped...)

4. For the CT interpretation of the Parkland witnesses to be correct, several prominent Dealey Plaza witnesses, including William Newman and Abraham Zapruder, who immediately reported a large wound on the side of Kennedy's head, would have to have been wrong, and wrong in a way that supports supposedly faked evidence. This would indicate they lied and were possibly a part of the conspiracy. Nonsense!

4. A number of the Parkland witnesses have deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

5. Research conducted on human memory and human cognition indicates that shapes and locations of objects are often remembered incorrectly in patterns. This suggests that the mistake derives from normal human processes, much like an optical illusion. A glitch in the system, if you will.

6. Despite the assurance from many in the research community that ALL of these witnesses place the wound on the back of the head, the reality is that these witnesses are far from unanimous in their placement of the wound. Some place it on the right side of the head, only a few inches back of the wound seen in the photos, others place it low on the far back of the head. And despite the insistence of many researchers that these witnesses are proof a shot came from the knoll, I don't believe even one of these witnesses reported seeing a small entrance wound on the face or temple leading to this large purported exit. If this was the real location of the exit, where in hell was the entrance?

7. My analysis of the Harper Fragment and x-rays led me to believe the supposed exit by the temple was a tangential wound of a bullet fired from behind. This means the entrance at the back of Kennedy's head (whether cowlick or EOP) was a second head wound. Since Kennedy was also wounded in the back, this means he was hit three times, which would have to be considered unlikely, particularly if the shooter was Oswald (although, apparently, Purvis believes this occurred). Since frame 313 shows a large bone exploding from in front of Kennedy's ear and flying towards where Billy Harper found the fragment, I take this as another indication that the Z-film and the autopsy photos are correct and that the Parkland witnesses are wrong (at least as to their exact placement of the head wound).

P.S. Far be it from me wanting the autopsy photos to be correct, I was a conspiracist looking for proof of alteration. In order to fully convince myself, I decided it was probably best for me to side-step Lifton, Groden, Livingstone et al and go to the library, do my own research, and try to understand what the Z-film, photos, and x-rays actually revealed. The more research (mostly reading) I performed, however, the more I came to realize that two things were true: one, the single-bullet theory was almost certainly b.s.; and two, the conspiracy community had latched onto their own version of the single-bullet theory (a grassy knoll shooter firing the head shot at Z-313) and, just like the lone-nutters, had built much of their evidence around their acceptance of a mistaken belief. Once, I accepted that it was possible the head shot DIDN'T come from the knoll, and stopped trying to prove it did, I realized that the Z-film, photos, and x-rays were all consistent and, taken together, pointed to the likelihood there were two shooters fiing from behind. (My concurrent study of the earwitnesses led me to believe there was a loud sound that came from west of the TSBD, and that this may have been a missed shot.)

Outside of Arlen Specter, Peter Jennings and Gerald Posner, I didn't mean to upset anybody.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Pat Speer