The bullet hole near the neck lines

[Jack White]

Pat is off base. For once I must agree with Bill Miller and

his accurate listing of testimony about the gaping wound

in the back of the head. These are eyewitnesses, not

expressing "memory transferrence" but what their eyes

saw.

Jack

[Frank Agbat]

I understand (all too well) the connundrums at work here... I'm still struggling with them. Boiled down, though, they come out to:

1 - I don't see the rear avulsion in Zapruder, either. I see skull shape distortion -- perhaps this is even more noticeable in Nix, but I honestly don't see the "blowout" that is frequently mentioned. Bill Miller frequently cites this as being fairly obvious, and I have tremendous respect for Bill's knowledge and experience, but I just don't see the blowout/rear avulsion on Zapruder. I'm not exactly untrained or inexperienced in the fields of photography and physics, and I think I have a reasonably astute eye. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong area or am locked-in on an unimportant feature while missing a major one. I just don't know -- my mind is certainly open on the subject.

2 - At the same time as I don't see the blowout, I also see (very clearly) the blood splatter patterns that Sheri Gutierez discussed on Lancer (and that Bill has shown with the tomato picture).

3 - The autopsy photos and x-rays lead me in the direction of Pat's conclusions. They *seem* consistent with the z-film. I agree with Pat, that if these photos/x-rays are genuine, the angles and trajectory to the TSBD for all shots is utterly destroyed.

4 - At the same time, I cannot dismiss the eyewitness testimony. It is too "Warrenlike" (to coin a phrase) to take a fairly large, well-documented collection of witnesses and proclaim them "in error." It is reasonable to assume that some of them probably *are* mistaken or confused (or there is a terminology problem at work), but *all* of them falling into this category is statistically unlikely.

5 - I have not yet come up with a plausible explanation for the back and to-the-left motion. I've *never* seen anything like that (outside of hollywood).

6 - If there was a shot from the front (traditional north knoll location), why wasn't there left-hemisphere damage to JFKs skull (unless the bullet went in, bounced around a bit, and came back out in the same direction it entered)? Likewise, a shot from the TSBD should cause massive forhead/eye socket damage, which also is not indicated by *either* pictures or witnesses.

7 - I've never seen a good 3-d diagram considering a south-knoll shot, so I cannot fully comment on it. This theory strikes me as under-researched, but that could be my own relative newness in this field.

****

So, there *has* to be an explanation. The event occurred -- of this, there is no doubt.

If I were working on this as a science project, I would consider a few things:

1 -- the working hypothesis may be wrong.

2 -- the information used in testing the hypothesis may be wrong or corrupt.

3 -- the information used may be incomplete.

4 -- the interpretation of the results may be flawed.

[Bill Miller]

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.

You are reaching for excuses IMO. O'Conner saw the same thing when he first opened the shipping casket. The same with Jenkins as I recall. Custer Xrayed the head before the autopsy started. Nowhere have I read that witnesses were talking about seeing the large hole only after the brain had been removed.

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).

That is BS, Pat .... Those people in Groden's book were asked to place their hand where the large wound was located and they did so by placing their hand on the backs of their heads. The skull flap/called the bone plate by Baxter, wasn't even seen by most of those at Parkland because it was stuck in place on the top of the head.

This hole is also visible in the Zapruder film. And yet how many Parkland witnesses mention this hole?????

Go back and count them all - I named several in a previous reply.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

[Robin Unger]

Pat.

Because kennedy was laying on his back at Parkland doesn't mean that the back of the head was not still visible.

You only had to turn his head to the LEFT

QUOTE:

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.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Pat Speer]

That is BS, Pat .... Those people in Groden's book were asked to place their hand where the large wound was located and they did so by placing their hand on the backs of their heads. The skull flap/called the bone plate by Baxter, wasn't even seen by most of those at Parkland because it was stuck in place on the top of the head.

This hole is also visible in the Zapruder film. And yet how many Parkland witnesses mention this hole?????

Go back and count them all - I named several in a previous reply.

In the Zapruder film, we see a piece of bone fly up from the top of Kennedy's skull. In the autopsy photos and x-rays we see a large hole in front of Kennedy's ear. In the top of the head photos we see where there is missing skull directly back of Kennedy's face. in the back of the head photo we see Boswell's thumb inside this hole,and that this hole connects the top of his head with the temple area. The autopsy doctors described the wound in such a manner The 'bone flap" seen in the autopsy photos only covered the area by the temple. Are you saying there was NO large hole at the top of Kennedy's head, or that Jackie was able to hide this HUGE hole so that no one in Parkland could see it? Show me where any of the Parkland witnesses say "oh, yeah, there was this one hole at the top of his head, and then there was this other one on the far back of his head..." They don't. They saw one big bloody hole. Where do you think the large bone fragment found by Sam Kinney came from? Are you gonna twist it so that both this large bone and the Harper Fragment came from the occipital area? And if this is so, how can you still swear by the Zapruder film, when it shows these fragments, (or fragments of their size) breaking away from the skull from in front of Kennedy's ear?

Isn't it a hell of a lot more logical to assume that some people remembered things incorrectly than that MANY other people lied, and/or manufactured evidence? Since there has been extensive research on the failings of memory, shouldn't researcher/analysts satisfy themselves that there could be no logical explanation for the conflicting testimony, before they decide a body was kidnapped and altered and/or all the autopsy evidence was manufactured? Particularly since the evidence AS IS demonstrates the likelihood of two shooters...

In Elizabeth Loftus' writings she repeats over and over again that eyewitness testimony is perhaps the LEAST reliable form of evidence, and yet jurors trust it more than almost any other, because to admit the failings of eyewitness testimony would be to admit their own imperfection. I think some of the resistance my ideas are receiving reflects that she's right. Why is it asinine and irresponsible to entertain the notion that a group of people might have remembered things incorrectly? Why is it sacred that the Parkland witnesses are correct, but that the autopsy doctors all lied from day one? Is it our goal to insist that the evidence makes no sense, and that therefore the government is evil, or is it our goal to make sense of things as best we can?

You don't need to agree with me, but to insist that my research, which I believe sets back severely the lone-nutter arguments that there is "not one scintilla of evidence blah blah blah" is irresponsible, is, I believe, incredibly short-sighted.

[Pat Speer]

Pat.

Because kennedy was laying on his back at Parkland doesn't mean that the back of the head was not still visible.

You only had to turn his head to the LEFT

QUOTE:

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.

That's a valid point, Robin. A few of the people there may have seen the wound from the side when someone tilted Kennedy's head to his left. But many of the witnesses only saw him for a second while he was lying on his back. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the proportions of a large wound on the back of someone's head while they were lying on their back. It would be quite difficult even to establish the proportions with his head tilted only "slightly" to his left.

The majority of the witnesses saw Kennedy from the entrance to the room, looking up at him from below his feet or at his side. From their perspective, the wound was on the "far" side of Kennedy's head. Since memory research indicates that people usually remember the positions of things from the perspective of looking down from above, I believe it's possible, (and under the circumstances even likely )that their memory of the wound being on the "far" side got transformed into being on the back side. I also believe it's possible that their familiarity with Kennedy's face--the most famous face in the world--and having always seen this face in the upright position, contributed to this transformation. But I could be wrong. The autopsy photos could be fake. The Z-film could be fake. The x-rays could be fake. Which leaves the "research community" nowhere, in the eyes of the media and academia. It leaves us barking at the wind.

If going along with the authenticity of the evidence is what it takes to get the media to take conspiracy theorists seriously, I'm game. In my presentation, I tried to show how the evidence points to a conspiracy, whether or not it was altered. It's interesting to me that the only negative comments I've received have come from conspiracy theorists. Oh well. Even if readers think I'm full of rubbish, I hope they'll find my attack on Canning's trajectories in the section entitled "The Tangled Web" enlightening.

[Robin Unger]

Pat.

I think that we communicate our thoughts calmly and in a dignified non agressive manner.

We may not always see eye to eye on every issue, but that is the nature of the beast when dealing with the autopsy photo's.

[David G. Healy]

Pat wrote:

[...]

You don't need to agree with me, but to insist that my research, which I believe sets back severely the lone-nutter arguments that there is "not one scintilla of evidence blah blah blah" is irresponsible, is, I believe, incredibly short-sighted.

Your research is fine, Pat. To take it a step further -- If one eliminated first person eye witness testimony (read: near term - long term memory) in this case - what would the case againist LHO be? Not much! What's left? Why the films, right? When one camp in particular questions THOSE films, you think the wailing is high now, it would reach reach epic proportions if that were the case?

Look on the bright side of things, WITH eye witness testimony, things like this forum [amongst others] seem to thrive, not to mention, local DA's offices, they keep plugging away...

For many understanding what the Warren Comission members saw, read, comprehended -- what their assigns were tasked with; saw, read, spoke, asked and comprehended is more than sufficient to lead one to the conspiracy side of the equation...

Edited January 25, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Thomas H. Purvis]

That is BS, Pat .... Those people in Groden's book were asked to place their hand where the large wound was located and they did so by placing their hand on the backs of their heads. The skull flap/called the bone plate by Baxter, wasn't even seen by most of those at Parkland because it was stuck in place on the top of the head.

This hole is also visible in the Zapruder film. And yet how many Parkland witnesses mention this hole?????

Go back and count them all - I named several in a previous reply.

In the Zapruder film, we see a piece of bone fly up from the top of Kennedy's skull. In the autopsy photos and x-rays we see a large hole in front of Kennedy's ear. In the top of the head photos we see where there is missing skull directly back of Kennedy's face. in the back of the head photo we see Boswell's thumb inside this hole,and that this hole connects the top of his head with the temple area. The autopsy doctors described the wound in such a manner The 'bone flap" seen in the autopsy photos only covered the area by the temple. Are you saying there was NO large hole at the top of Kennedy's head, or that Jackie was able to hide this HUGE hole so that no one in Parkland could see it? Show me where any of the Parkland witnesses say "oh, yeah, there was this one hole at the top of his head, and then there was this other one on the far back of his head..." They don't. They saw one big bloody hole. Where do you think the large bone fragment found by Sam Kinney came from? Are you gonna twist it so that both this large bone and the Harper Fragment came from the occipital area? And if this is so, how can you still swear by the Zapruder film, when it shows these fragments, (or fragments of their size) breaking away from the skull from in front of Kennedy's ear?

Isn't it a hell of a lot more logical to assume that some people remembered things incorrectly than that MANY other people lied, and/or manufactured evidence? Since there has been extensive research on the failings of memory, shouldn't researcher/analysts satisfy themselves that there could be no logical explanation for the conflicting testimony, before they decide a body was kidnapped and altered and/or all the autopsy evidence was manufactured? Particularly since the evidence AS IS demonstrates the likelihood of two shooters...

In Elizabeth Loftus' writings she repeats over and over again that eyewitness testimony is perhaps the LEAST reliable form of evidence, and yet jurors trust it more than almost any other, because to admit the failings of eyewitness testimony would be to admit their own imperfection. I think some of the resistance my ideas are receiving reflects that she's right. Why is it asinine and irresponsible to entertain the notion that a group of people might have remembered things incorrectly? Why is it sacred that the Parkland witnesses are correct, but that the autopsy doctors all lied from day one? Is it our goal to insist that the evidence makes no sense, and that therefore the government is evil, or is it our goal to make sense of things as best we can?

You don't need to agree with me, but to insist that my research, which I believe sets back severely the lone-nutter arguments that there is "not one scintilla of evidence blah blah blah" is irresponsible, is, I believe, incredibly short-sighted.

Your work, when fully presented, should demonstrate to those with the ability for logical and deductive reasoning, that all shots which struck JFK came from the rear. Which is of course the facts, as well as truth.

Of course you should also be fully aware of what that does to the grassy knoll/badgeman/black-dog man/sewer drain man/body snatcher & wound alteration crowd.

In recognizing that you have yet to correlate those items of factual evidence which also demonstrate that the EOP shot also came from the 6th floor of the TSDB, proving three shots/three hits, with all shots having been fired from the rear is the first "good" step in that direction.

You are well on the road to resolving more of this "enigma" than virtually any researcher to date.

And, with virtually all questions related to the evidence and exactly what someone saw at any given time, for all practical purposes also has completely logical explanations. And in that regard, it is entirely another "story" in explanation of the wounds.

However, for now, one should remember one essential element of the WC testimony which of course does remain as a given fact:

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

Mr. FRAZIER -

because the one through the President had to cause Connally's wound otherwise it would have struck somewhere else in the car and it did not strike somewhere else.

Therefore, it had to go through Governor Connally.

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

Welcome to the "Magic Bullet Club" Pat!

Tom

P.S. Still only one shooter!

[Frank Agbat]

Tom,

...So you're basically saying that the WC got it right?

[Bill Miller]

The 'bone flap" seen in the autopsy photos only covered the area by the temple. Are you saying there was NO large hole at the top of Kennedy's head, or that Jackie was able to hide this HUGE hole so that no one in Parkland could see it? Show me where any of the Parkland witnesses say "oh, yeah, there was this one hole at the top of his head, and then there was this other one on the far back of his head..." They don't. They saw one big bloody hole. Where do you think the large bone fragment found by Sam Kinney came from? Are you gonna twist it so that both this large bone and the Harper Fragment came from the occipital area? And if this is so, how can you still swear by the Zapruder film, when it shows these fragments, (or fragments of their size) breaking away from the skull from in front of Kennedy's ear?

Isn't it a hell of a lot more logical to assume that some people remembered things incorrectly than that MANY other people lied, and/or manufactured evidence? Since there has been extensive research on the failings of memory, shouldn't researcher/analysts satisfy themselves that there could be no logical explanation for the conflicting testimony, before they decide a body was kidnapped and altered and/or all the autopsy evidence was manufactured? Particularly since the evidence AS IS demonstrates the likelihood of two shooters...

In Elizabeth Loftus' writings she repeats over and over again that eyewitness testimony is perhaps the LEAST reliable form of evidence, and yet jurors trust it more than almost any other, because to admit the failings of eyewitness testimony would be to admit their own imperfection. I think some of the resistance my ideas are receiving reflects that she's right. Why is it asinine and irresponsible to entertain the notion that a group of people might have remembered things incorrectly? Why is it sacred that the Parkland witnesses are correct, but that the autopsy doctors all lied from day one? Is it our goal to insist that the evidence makes no sense, and that therefore the government is evil, or is it our goal to make sense of things as best we can?

You don't need to agree with me, but to insist that my research, which I believe sets back severely the lone-nutter arguments that there is "not one scintilla of evidence blah blah blah" is irresponsible, is, I believe, incredibly short-sighted.

Pat - try to keep straight what was found and what was seen. Jackie testified that she held the President's head on - Baxter mentions the bone plate. Read carefully how many other people didn't see that bone plate at Parkland ... the reason for this has already been stated. Next, get a diagram of the skull and find out where the "OCCIPITAL BONE" is located. Also, sometime when you have time - compare the size of the bone plate hanging off the side of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film to the size of the bone seen in the autopsy photos and tell me what you come up with.

BTW - Your rsearch is fine ... your saying that all the Dallas doctors and witnesses who laid their hand on the back of their head to describe the location of the wound they saw were simply mistaken is ridiculous.

Edited January 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom,

...So you're basically saying that the WC got it right?

The WC is an intentional lie, misrepresentation, and obfuscation of the facts of the assassination.

Other than that, there was a single shooter!

There were three shots fired!

All of those shots fired also struck JFK. (Exactly why would anyone think otherwise??????) Surely not because the WC TOLD us that one of the shots missed!-----------I have frequently advised all that they should read up on the 10 pages of "circular" reasoning in which the WC attempts to argue the points of eactly which of the three shots fired, they claim completely missed.

Of those three shots fired, one of the bullets struck JFK, passed completely through him, and ultimately passed through the chest of JBC.

Lastly, the one that did the above, is of course the "Magic Bullet", and it is in fact considerably more magic than most are aware.

With little more than some "sleight-of-hand" on the part of select members of the WC, information related to the firing of the shot has been obscured.

With little more than some obfuscation of the facts, the wounds created by this bullet have been blamed on other shots, or misrepresented completely.

With little more than suppression of certain critical evidence, the bullet itself has disappeared.

The "Magic Bullet Club" has no association to and/or worship of CE399, as it is just a common old bullet which has no great talent, and it most certainly did not disappear. Therefore, it has no magical powers.

The Club is exclusively for those who, at minimum, have come to realize that JFK was struck in the head two separate times, by shots fired from the rear, and should therefore fully recognize that somewhere, we have a missing bullet.

One does not even have to believe in the "lone assassin" to become a member.

The mere fact that one can adequately evaluate the pathological evidence and recognize the second shot to the head, from the rear, guarantees charter membership.

Tom

P.S. I might add that your "scientific" approach is in fact the only correct means to resolve the issues.

[Bill Miller]

That's a valid point, Robin. A few of the people there may have seen the wound from the side when someone tilted Kennedy's head to his left. But many of the witnesses only saw him for a second while he was lying on his back. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the proportions of a large wound on the back of someone's head while they were lying on their back. It would be quite difficult even to establish the proportions with his head tilted only "slightly" to his left.

The majority of the witnesses saw Kennedy from the entrance to the room, looking up at him from below his feet or at his side. From their perspective, the wound was on the "far" side of Kennedy's head.

This is really getting silly! It only takes one reliable witness for the large avusled hole in the back of JFK's head to have been there. The Parkland nurses who saw the wound up close, thus they are reliable ... Dr. McClelland was less than 18" away and looking at this wound for about 10 minutes or so - so he is reliable - Dr. Clark is reliable - Dr. Perry is reliable - Sibert and O'Neil were reliable - etc., etc,. (Did you know that it was Sibert who first pointed out the bullet hole in JFK's back at the autopsy?) So whether someone was across the room - down the hall - a block away - had one eye - or was considered legally blind ... if they described the same wound that the people who saw it up close described, then their statements are considered reliable on the grounds they have other witnesses who collaborate what they saw. Having won several suits and assisted in several trials ... I can say that any expert who tried to push their position and at the same time tried to push the "mass hallucination" card to the jury would only be hurting their own credibility.

Bill

Edited January 25, 2006 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

The WC is an intentional lie, misrepresentation, and obfuscation of the facts of the assassination.

Other than that, there was a single shooter!

There were three shots fired!

Of those three shots fired, one of the bullets struck JFK, passed completely through him, and ultimately passed through the chest of JBC.

Lastly, the one that did the above, is of course the "Magic Bullet", and it is in fact considerably more magic than most are aware.

The "Magic Bullet Club" has no association to and/or worship of CE399, as it is just a common old bullet which has no great talent, and it most certainly did not disappear. Therefore, it has no magical powers.

In Zapruder frame 224 at the moment Connally's right shoulder is driven forward and down - the Governor's right wrist is to the right of his right nipple and above it. This means that CE399 could not have passed through Connally's wrist at the moment a bullet ripped through his chest and not have at least some microscopic traces of blood on it anywhere. This especially true if we are to be asked to believe that CE399 laid in the Governor's thigh for any perioid of time.

I advise anyone who is interested in seeing if CE399 could do what Purvis has said, please go to page 6 of this thread and see the animations in post #80.

Bill Miller

JFK assassination researcher/investigator

Edited January 25, 2006 by Bill Miller