Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The small "half-moon" sketch at the bottom represents that piece of the skull from the right occipital/parietal area of the skull. The small circular/oval area with the straight line drawn going into it represents the bullet entrance into the bone, of which this piece of bone contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance hole This piece of bone, when re-inserted at the base of the skull, completed reconstruction of this portion of the skull and thereafter demonstrated the WHOLE HOLE, which the entering bullet created. It was with this that the entry into the skull could then be measured for size. The straight line drawn was meant to represent the general angle of entry into the bone of the bullet. It should be noted that the large 10 X 17 area of the skull was still missing at the time that Dr. Boswell made this drawing. The piece of bone which partially covered this missing area of the skull was also brought in during the initial examination and prior to the X-ray's, however it was after Dr. Boswell had made this drawing. Tom P.S. Where would you like your membership card mailed to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) The small "half-moon" sketch at the bottom represents that piece of the skull from the right occipital/parietal area of the skull. The small circular/oval area with the straight line drawn going into it represents the bullet entrance into the bone, of which this piece of bone contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance hole This piece of bone, when re-inserted at the base of the skull, completed reconstruction of this portion of the skull and thereafter demonstrated the WHOLE HOLE, which the entering bullet created. It was with this that the entry into the skull could then be measured for size. It is a running joke that you keep describing wounds as factual in one photo compared to another as if they are one in the same, yet they are not on the same portion of the head. If one looks at the frontal Xray alleged to be that of JFK - the entire hole is seen on the back of the skull and it is not down near the neck next to the hairline. Then the photo you argued for showing a hole near the hairline also shows part of the notch that you just referred to as a bullet hole and they can be seen at diferent locations. Now if the assassination was carried out by one shooter as you have said, then how can you support both alleged holes in the back of JFK's head when Oswald was said to have fired only three shots and as I said before, Connally's wrist is to the right and above his right nipple when he took the shot to his back. That means tweo shots had to hit Connally ... one hit JFK in the back and another in his head at Z313. You just ran out of bullets and yet you still have holes to acount for. So if you want to stay within the three shot allegation range, then you are going to have to lose one of the alleged small holes in the back of the President's skull. Edited January 25, 2006 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) 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. Bill, I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I think it's the most logical answer to one of the many troubling questions regarding the evidence. It seems evident that Jackie tried to re-construct her husband's head by re-closing the large gap seen on the Zapruder film. Unfortunately, according to the autopsy report, there was still a large hole (as is obvious in the top of the head photo) including an area that was missing scalp (a sign of ENTRANCE according to Spitz and Fisher). What I fail to understand is how you can stand by the Zapruder film, which shows this hole to be in front of Kennedy's ear, and then insist that the autopsy photos which confirm the Z-film's location of the wound are fakes. Just where do you think the Harper Fragment and large Fragment came from? If they came from the top of Kennedy's head, as shown in the Zapruder film, then how could the Parkland witnesses NOT have noticed? If they came from the occipital region, on the other hand, how come this isn't shown on the Zapruder film? If you accept that the Zapruder film has not been altered, then you HAVE to conclude the Parkland witnesses were incorrect in their placement of the wound. It's really that simple. Memory research indicates that a lot of our memories are re-created not from photographic imprints of actual memories but from scenarios that we tell ourselves. In the case of Kennedy's head wound, witnesses very well may have remembered the wound as "in the hair not on his face." Well, where do most people perceive the face to end? At the ear... As a result someone could very well conclude that "in the hair not on the face" meant "behind the ear". Similarly, since people think of the ear as being in the middle of the skull, when it's actually towards the back, they might transform the wound in their memory to being at the far back of the head. I'm not making this up. There is a growing body of research on this subject. If these witnesses are as reliable as you contend then how come the doctors who spent the most time looking at the wounds, i.e. Clark, Perry, even McClelland, deferred to the acccuracy of the photos? Edited January 25, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 25, 2006 Author Share Posted January 25, 2006 (edited) The small "half-moon" sketch at the bottom represents that piece of the skull from the right occipital/parietal area of the skull.The small circular/oval area with the straight line drawn going into it represents the bullet entrance into the bone, of which this piece of bone contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance hole This piece of bone, when re-inserted at the base of the skull, completed reconstruction of this portion of the skull and thereafter demonstrated the WHOLE HOLE, which the entering bullet created. It was with this that the entry into the skull could then be measured for size. It is a running joke that you keep describing wounds as factual in one photo compared to another as if they are one in the same, yet they are not on the same portion of the head. If one looks at the frontal Xray alleged to be that of JFK - the entire hole is seen on the back of the skull and it is not down near the neck next to the hairline. Then the photo you argued for showing a hole near the hairline also shows part of the notch that you just referred to as a bullet hole and they can be seen at diferent locations. Now if the assassination was carried out by one shooter as you have said, then how can you support both alleged holes in the back of JFK's head when Oswald was said to have fired only three shots and as I said before, Connally's wrist is to the right and above his right nipple when he took the shot to his back. That means tweo shots had to hit Connally ... one hit JFK in the back and another in his head at Z313. You just ran out of bullets and yet you still have holes to acount for. So if you want to stay within the three shot allegation range, then you are going to have to lose one of the alleged small holes in the back of the President's skull. I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life, which was in conflict with the statements of both Finck and Humes, as well as the original autopsy report signed by Boswell. I believe Boswell was confusing the reconstruction of the exit hole using the three fragments brought to them late in the autopsy, with the entrance wound near the EOP, which Humes and Finck reported as a round hole through the bone. (This matches the hole in the photo we're discussing.) And despite Bill's assertion that there is an obvious hole on the back of the head visible on the A-P x-ray, the various radiology consultants hired by the government over the years have had an amazingly hard time locating and describing this hole. A summary of their findings (from the x-ray section of my presentation) Clark Panel (February, 1968, using the un-enhanced x-rays): claims 8 mm hole on outer table, 20 mm on inner table. 10 cm above the EOP, directly above the depressed fracture (which means it’s in a section of parietal bone that fell to the table when the doctors peeled back the scalp and NOT in the occipital bone near the hairline where the doctors saw a beveled entrance) .Large fragment is embedded in outer table of skull close to the lower edge of the hole (implying it’s in the depressed bone). Small fragments of bone lie within the hole. Dr, Lawrence Angel (October, 1977, un-enhanced): entrance 1.8 cm to right of midline, just below obelion, the mid-point of the Lambda suture. This means it’s on the occipital bone where Humes originally placed it, and not the parietal, where the Clark Panel moved it. Since Dr. Davis measured the Lambda as 6 cm above the EOP, this is indicative that Angel placed the entrance 4 cm (more than 1 ½ inches) below the Clark Panel’s entrance. Angel also says radiopaque lump (the large fragment) is behind obelion and appears to mark entry. Dr. Norman Chase (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees an entry point on upper rear head. Sees metal fragment at back of head. Dr. William Seaman (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees possible defect in upper rear skull. Sees no beveling denoting an entrance. Dr. G.M. McDonnel (August, 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole, sees depressed fracture with radiating fractures 10.6 cm above the EOP, and a large metallic fragment 1 cm below it on the outer table of the skull, above the mid-portion of the EOP. Dr. David O. Davis, (August 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole, says the large fragment is 9-10 cm above the EOP on the outer table of the skull and is 2.5 cm to right of midline. Says radiating fractures “seem to more or less emanate from” the fragment, but later says central point of fractures is 3 cm from midline, which means the bullet fragment ended up to the left of the entrance. HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel: no mention of hole per se, only the depressed fracture as “sharp disruption of the normal smooth contour of the skull 10 cm above the EOP” (which makes it higher than in the Clark Panel Report, whose measurement of 10 cm was the distance to the 8 mm hole above the depressed fracture). Mentions “suggested beveling” of the inner table and radiating fracture lines. Says large fragment is 2.5 cm to the right of the midline at the lower margin of the defect, which means bullet fragment ended up to the right and below the entrance (assuming they shared the trajectory analysis’s belief the entrance was 1.8 cm from mid-line.) HSCA Trajectory Analysis: determined entrance was 1.8 cm to the right of midline and 9 cm above the EOP. Shouldn’t an oval-shaped bullet entrance high on the back of someone’s head be readily identifiable to experienced radiologists and doctors using computer-enhanced x-rays? And how could the Clark Panel, using un-enhanced x-rays, “see” so much more than anybody else? Edited January 27, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 26, 2006 Author Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) In an e-mail received today, David Lifton has acknowledged that he believes there is a bullet hole near the neck lines in this photo. He is of the opinion that it was added for the sake of the photo, and was not a wound on the body when it was at Parkland. He believes that this wound was originally intended to be the entrance for an exit at the throat wound, and was originally interpreted as such, but that the doctors changed their minds on this midway through the autopsy. (He doesn't speculate why.) He cites that autopsy witness Richard Lipsey said the doctors discussed a wound at the base of the skull which led to an exit at the throat. Lifton believes, however, that this entrance wound was ignored by the doctors in their autopsy report. (While I followed most of his ideas, this part threw me, as this low entrance is, in my impression, the very entrance described by Humes in the autopsy report. Lifton may have momentarily forgot that the "high entrance" on the back of the head was never even discussed until the Clark Panel.) Anyhow... I'm grateful for his input. Edited January 27, 2006 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 The small "half-moon" sketch at the bottom represents that piece of the skull from the right occipital/parietal area of the skull. The small circular/oval area with the straight line drawn going into it represents the bullet entrance into the bone, of which this piece of bone contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance hole This piece of bone, when re-inserted at the base of the skull, completed reconstruction of this portion of the skull and thereafter demonstrated the WHOLE HOLE, which the entering bullet created. It was with this that the entry into the skull could then be measured for size. It is a running joke that you keep describing wounds as factual in one photo compared to another as if they are one in the same, yet they are not on the same portion of the head. If one looks at the frontal Xray alleged to be that of JFK - the entire hole is seen on the back of the skull and it is not down near the neck next to the hairline. Then the photo you argued for showing a hole near the hairline also shows part of the notch that you just referred to as a bullet hole and they can be seen at diferent locations. Now if the assassination was carried out by one shooter as you have said, then how can you support both alleged holes in the back of JFK's head when Oswald was said to have fired only three shots and as I said before, Connally's wrist is to the right and above his right nipple when he took the shot to his back. That means tweo shots had to hit Connally ... one hit JFK in the back and another in his head at Z313. You just ran out of bullets and yet you still have holes to acount for. So if you want to stay within the three shot allegation range, then you are going to have to lose one of the alleged small holes in the back of the President's skull. I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life, which was in conflict with the statements of both Finck and Humes, as well as the original autopsy report signed by Boswell. I believe Boswell was confiusing the reconstruction of the exit hole using the three fragments brought to them late in the autopsy, with the entrance wound near the EOP, which Humes and Finck reported as a round hole throught the bone. (This matches the hole in the photo we're discussing.) And despite Bill's assertion that there is an obvious hole on the back of the head visible on the A-P x-ray, the various radiology consultants hired by the government over the years have had an amazingly hard time locating and describing this hole. A summary of their findings (from the x-ray section of my presentation) Clark Panel (February, 1968, using the un-enhanced x-rays): claims 8 mm hole on outer table, 20 mm on inner table. 10 cm above the EOP, directly above the depressed fracture (which means it’s in a section of parietal bone that fell to the table when the doctors peeled back the scalp and NOT in the occipital bone near the hairline where the doctors saw a beveled entrance) .Large fragment is embedded in outer table of skull close to the lower edge of the hole (implying it’s in the depressed bone). Small fragments of bone lie within the hole. Dr, Lawrence Angel (October, 1977, un-enhanced): entrance 1.8 cm to right of midline, just below obelion, the mid-point of the Lambda suture. This means it’s on the occipital bone where Humes originally placed it, and not the parietal, where the Clark Panel moved it. Since Dr. Davis measured the Lambda as 6 cm above the EOP, this is indicative that Angel placed the entrance 4 cm (more than 1 ½ inches) below the Clark Panel’s entrance. Angel also says radiopaque lump (the large fragment) is behind obelion and appears to mark entry. Dr. Norman Chase (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees an entry point on upper rear head. Sees metal fragment at back of head. Dr. William Seaman (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees possible defect in upper rear skull. Sees no beveling denoting an entrance. Dr. G.M. McDonnel (August, 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole, sees depressed fracture with radiating fractures 10.6 cm above the EOP, and a large metallic fragment 1 cm below it on the outer table of the skull, above the mid-portion of the EOP. Dr. David O. Davis, (August 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole, says the large fragment is 9-10 cm above the EOP on the outer table of the skull and is 2.5 cm to right of midline. Says radiating fractures “seem to more or less emanate from” the fragment, but later says central point of fractures is 3 cm from midline, which means the bullet fragment ended up to the left of the entrance. HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel: no mention of hole per se, only the depressed fracture as “sharp disruption of the normal smooth contour of the skull 10 cm above the EOP” (which makes it higher than in the Clark Panel Report, whose measurement of 10 cm was the distance to the 8 mm hole above the depressed fracture). Mentions “suggested beveling” of the inner table and radiating fracture lines. Says large fragment is 2.5 cm to the right of the midline at the lower margin of the defect, which means bullet fragment ended up to the right and below the entrance (assuming they shared the trajectory analysis’s belief the entrance was 1.8 cm from mid-line.) HSCA Trajectory Analysis: determined entrance was 1.8 cm to the right of midline and 9 cm above the EOP. Shouldn’t an oval-shaped bullet entrance high on the back of someone’s head be readily identifiable to experienced radiologists and doctors using computer-enhanced x-rays? And how could the Clark Panel, using un-enhanced x-rays, “see” so much more than anybody else? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life, which was in conflict with the statements of both Finck and Humes, as well as the original autopsy report signed by Boswell. I believe Boswell was confiusing the reconstruction of the exit hole using the three fragments brought to them late in the autopsy, with the entrance wound near the EOP, which Humes and Finck reported as a round hole throught the bone. (This matches the hole in the photo we're discussing.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Long ago, I posted a copy of my letter to Dr. Boswell which was written to him in the 1990's. In the letter, I sent him a copy of CE397 as well as copies of photo's of the bone fragments which were later brought in and X-rayed, and in which they found the exit beveling. In follow-up telephone conversations, Dr. Boswell was "ABSOLUTE" that the small circular drawing was from the rear base of the skull and had one-half of the bullet entrance hole in it. He stated that to the best of his recollection, that this piece of bone was brought in separately, and that it was, along with the other pieces, re-inserted for the later X-rays. He did state that this was his recollection, and that he could be wrong in that the bone may have fallen out when they pulled the scalp back in the area. He stated that the skull was fractured with multiple fractures in different directions, and that when the scalp was pulled back, pieces of skull bone fell, or came out with the scalp. Based on the fact that he has the "fractures" drawn on the skull drawing, he felt that the small half-moon shaped piece of bone with the one-half of the bullet entrance was brought in separately by some of the FBI and/or SS agents. Of two things, Dr. Boswell was adamant and certain. That the piece of bone came from the right rear occipital/parietal area of the skull. That the piece of bone contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance wound of the EOP area. He was also relatively certain that he had drawn in the "straight" line onto the fragment in representation of the bullet track/entry pathway. And, as is evidenced by the drawing, the larger bone fragments of which one contained a portion of an exit wound, had not been received at the time that CE397 was completed. This is in fact the specific reason that the document were sent to Dr. Boswell and I spoke with him along these lines, as the small half-moon drawing on CE397 contains the same circular indication as the later fragment which had the exit location, and based on his hand drawing, one can not tell what the half-moon fragment was meant to depict. Based on this, I would remind one to take a look at the radiating lines which converge "downward" towards a central point at the back/base of the skull on the CE397 drawing as made by Dr. Boswell, and then compare this with the lateral X-ray. And lastly, with the autopsy report: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point of convergence for these radiating fractures is the point of entry. The EOP entry is, and has always been a pathological and physical fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 The small "half-moon" sketch at the bottom represents that piece of the skull from the right occipital/parietal area of the skull. The small circular/oval area with the straight line drawn going into it represents the bullet entrance into the bone, of which this piece of bone contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance hole This piece of bone, when re-inserted at the base of the skull, completed reconstruction of this portion of the skull and thereafter demonstrated the WHOLE HOLE, which the entering bullet created. It was with this that the entry into the skull could then be measured for size. It is a running joke that you keep describing wounds as factual in one photo compared to another as if they are one in the same, yet they are not on the same portion of the head. If one looks at the frontal Xray alleged to be that of JFK - the entire hole is seen on the back of the skull and it is not down near the neck next to the hairline. Then the photo you argued for showing a hole near the hairline also shows part of the notch that you just referred to as a bullet hole and they can be seen at diferent locations. Now if the assassination was carried out by one shooter as you have said, then how can you support both alleged holes in the back of JFK's head when Oswald was said to have fired only three shots and as I said before, Connally's wrist is to the right and above his right nipple when he took the shot to his back. That means tweo shots had to hit Connally ... one hit JFK in the back and another in his head at Z313. You just ran out of bullets and yet you still have holes to acount for. So if you want to stay within the three shot allegation range, then you are going to have to lose one of the alleged small holes in the back of the President's skull. I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life, which was in conflict with the statements of both Finck and Humes, as well as the original autopsy report signed by Boswell. I believe Boswell was confiusing the reconstruction of the exit hole using the three fragments brought to them late in the autopsy, with the entrance wound near the EOP, which Humes and Finck reported as a round hole throught the bone. (This matches the hole in the photo we're discussing.) And despite Bill's assertion that there is an obvious hole on the back of the head visible on the A-P x-ray, the various radiology consultants hired by the government over the years have had an amazingly hard time locating and describing this hole. A summary of their findings (from the x-ray section of my presentation) Clark Panel (February, 1968, using the un-enhanced x-rays): claims 8 mm hole on outer table, 20 mm on inner table. 10 cm above the EOP, directly above the depressed fracture (which means it’s in a section of parietal bone that fell to the table when the doctors peeled back the scalp and NOT in the occipital bone near the hairline where the doctors saw a beveled entrance) .Large fragment is embedded in outer table of skull close to the lower edge of the hole (implying it’s in the depressed bone). Small fragments of bone lie within the hole. Dr, Lawrence Angel (October, 1977, un-enhanced): entrance 1.8 cm to right of midline, just below obelion, the mid-point of the Lambda suture. This means it’s on the occipital bone where Humes originally placed it, and not the parietal, where the Clark Panel moved it. Since Dr. Davis measured the Lambda as 6 cm above the EOP, this is indicative that Angel placed the entrance 4 cm (more than 1 ½ inches) below the Clark Panel’s entrance. Angel also says radiopaque lump (the large fragment) is behind obelion and appears to mark entry. Dr. Norman Chase (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees an entry point on upper rear head. Sees metal fragment at back of head. Dr. William Seaman (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees possible defect in upper rear skull. Sees no beveling denoting an entrance. Dr. G.M. McDonnel (August, 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole, sees depressed fracture with radiating fractures 10.6 cm above the EOP, and a large metallic fragment 1 cm below it on the outer table of the skull, above the mid-portion of the EOP. Dr. David O. Davis, (August 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole, says the large fragment is 9-10 cm above the EOP on the outer table of the skull and is 2.5 cm to right of midline. Says radiating fractures “seem to more or less emanate from” the fragment, but later says central point of fractures is 3 cm from midline, which means the bullet fragment ended up to the left of the entrance. HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel: no mention of hole per se, only the depressed fracture as “sharp disruption of the normal smooth contour of the skull 10 cm above the EOP” (which makes it higher than in the Clark Panel Report, whose measurement of 10 cm was the distance to the 8 mm hole above the depressed fracture). Mentions “suggested beveling” of the inner table and radiating fracture lines. Says large fragment is 2.5 cm to the right of the midline at the lower margin of the defect, which means bullet fragment ended up to the right and below the entrance (assuming they shared the trajectory analysis’s belief the entrance was 1.8 cm from mid-line.) HSCA Trajectory Analysis: determined entrance was 1.8 cm to the right of midline and 9 cm above the EOP. Shouldn’t an oval-shaped bullet entrance high on the back of someone’s head be readily identifiable to experienced radiologists and doctors using computer-enhanced x-rays? And how could the Clark Panel, using un-enhanced x-rays, “see” so much more than anybody else? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life, which was in conflict with the statements of both Finck and Humes, as well as the original autopsy report signed by Boswell. I believe Boswell was confiusing the reconstruction of the exit hole using the three fragments brought to them late in the autopsy, with the entrance wound near the EOP, which Humes and Finck reported as a round hole throught the bone. (This matches the hole in the photo we're discussing.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Long ago, I posted a copy of my letter to Dr. Boswell which was written to him in the 1990's. In the letter, I sent him a copy of CE397 as well as copies of photo's of the bone fragments which were later brought in and X-rayed, and in which they found the exit beveling. In follow-up telephone conversations, Dr. Boswell was "ABSOLUTE" that the small circular drawing was from the rear base of the skull and had one-half of the bullet entrance hole in it. He stated that to the best of his recollection, that this piece of bone was brought in separately, and that it was, along with the other pieces, re-inserted for the later X-rays. He did state that this was his recollection, and that he could be wrong in that the bone may have fallen out when they pulled the scalp back in the area. He stated that the skull was fractured with multiple fractures in different directions, and that when the scalp was pulled back, pieces of skull bone fell, or came out with the scalp. Based on the fact that he has the "fractures" drawn on the skull drawing, he felt that the small half-moon shaped piece of bone with the one-half of the bullet entrance was brought in separately by some of the FBI and/or SS agents. Of two things, Dr. Boswell was adamant and certain. That the piece of bone came from the right rear occipital/parietal area of the skull. That the piece of bone contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance wound of the EOP area. He was also relatively certain that he had drawn in the "straight" line onto the fragment in representation of the bullet track/entry pathway. And, as is evidenced by the drawing, the larger bone fragments of which one contained a portion of an exit wound, had not been received at the time that CE397 was completed. This is in fact the specific reason that the document were sent to Dr. Boswell and I spoke with him along these lines, as the small half-moon drawing on CE397 contains the same circular indication as the later fragment which had the exit location, and based on his hand drawing, one can not tell what the half-moon fragment was meant to depict. Based on this, I would remind one to take a look at the radiating lines which converge "downward" towards a central point at the back/base of the skull on the CE397 drawing as made by Dr. Boswell, and then compare this with the lateral X-ray. And lastly, with the autopsy report: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the longest measuring approximately 19 cm." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point of convergence for these radiating fractures is the point of entry. The EOP entry is, and has always been a pathological and physical fact. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0031a.htm "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone" http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0032a.htm "Received as separate specimans from Dallas, Tex, are three fragments of skull bone which in aggregate roughly approximate the dimensions of the large defect described above." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 The testimony of LTC Pierre Finck before the HSCA Medical Panel is crucial in understanding the sequencing of events in the autopsy of JFK. LTC Finck's testimony alone should be adequate to fully establish the EOP bullet entry into the skull of JFK as well as the entry point into the scalp which is located just above the hairline at the base of the neck. And even those "lay" persons who did not have their hands physically on the evidence were aware of this fact: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The testimony of LTC Finck is also critical in that it establishes a given guideline for certain activities related to the autopsy as well as the photographic and X-ray evidence which remains available. In repeated statements, LTC Finck has demonstrated that when he arrived at the autopsy, that JFK"s brain had already been removed. In this, it establishes given guidelines as regards other evidence. 1. That the currently available A/P as well as lateral x-rays were taken prior to Finck's arrival on the autopsy scene. This is evident as the brain, along with all of the embedded bullet fragments, is still present in the skull of JFK of for these X-ray's. Therefore, this re-construction of the skull with the "separate specimens received from Dallas, Tex." as well as the subsequent X-rays were taken prior to Finck having arrived on the scene. 2. From this point, in working backwards to the hand made drawing of Dr. Boswell (CE397), it is therefore of essence to recognize that this drawing was made upon the first/initial examination of the head of JFK, as the large portion of missing skull is fully demonstrated in the drawing. This missing portion of the skull of course mainly constituted by those "separate specimens received from Dallas, Tex.", and which, when re-inserted constutute the "which in aggregate roughly approximate the dimensions of the large defect described above." With this information, (as well as other info) a gradual progression of events during the initial phase of the autopsy of JFK can be re-constructed, along with the skull. Dr. Finck also makes repeated statements in regards attempts to photograph the EOP entry wound. In this regards, he references the entry into the scalp as well as the skull, and thereafter makes further repeated reference to photographs of the exterior entry point as well as the interior (of the skull) at this point which demonstrated the internal beveling which he and others observed and which fully qualified the wound as an ENTRY wound from the rear. The lateral X-ray of the head/skull of JFK, which was taken prior to removal of the brain, (and if we accept Dr. Finck's recollection was therefore taken prior to his arrival on the scene) demonstrates the various fracture lines as well as potential fragments of bone which could have been separated from the scalp and would have required re-insertion/re-construction for this X-ray. The hand made drawing of Dr. Boswell (CE397) which would have been made prior to the X-rays, as well as prior to receipt of and re-construction of the skull for these X-rays, clearly shows the half-moon piece of bone in which Dr. Boswell adamantly insists contained approximately one-half of the bullet entrance wound in the EOP area of the skull. This drawing therefore represents the "First" generation of the evidence chain, and in so doing establishes that the only portions of the skull available for examination at the initial examination phase of the autopsy was that portion(s) of the skull as demonstrated on Dr. Boswell's drawing. Which of course included the portion(s) of the skull which contained the EOP entry wound. In this regards, it would have been physically impossible for LTC Finck to have looked inside the skull of JFK after removal of the brain and thereafter observed a completely intact area of bone which in turn contained the entire bullet entry through the skull. This is also especially evident when those additional aspects of Dr. Boswell's drawing which demonstrate the "radiating" fractures is taken into consideration, as well as Dr. Hume's statements as regards the fractures in the skull which radiate from the small wound of the occiput. Although obviously present, the WHOLE HOLE, could not have been re-constructed and completely examined without the presence of at least two, or more, of those fragments of skull into which the skull had been separated by the radiating fractures and resulting fragments. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...tml/Image00.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm The inverse of "radiating from" would seem to be "convergence at", and therefore both the drawing made by Dr. Boswell, as well as well as the lateral X-ray are of considerable significance in that respect. http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/Xray.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Dr. Humes: To state what the problem was, the basic problem was, as we reflected the scalp, various fragments of bone, some fell into the cranial cavity, some came to the table, some adhered to dura and so forth." http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...ges/Image02.gif ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Boswell: It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire--I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-- Dr. Humes: To get to this entrance, right? Dr. Boswell: But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here--there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the bevelling on those was on the interior surface. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...ges/Image03.gif ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since the single-assassin theorists (outside of Purvis) fail to acknowledge this wound, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although the "Lone Nuter" side has and will always stick to their claims that the WC was correct, they should reevaluate their stance and position. In event the Autopsy Surgeons are correct, then the WC is incorrect. Therein lies a tremendous fallacy in logic! The EOP entrance exists! Attempting to make this wound merely an "error" in judgement of the autopsy surgeons places the LNer group as far away from the facts and truths of the assassination as does the presumptions of body kidnapping and wound alteration to the CT grouping. Only in accepting the factual existence of this wound, and understanding the nature of, as well as origin and resulting injuries (to all) can the shots fired in the assassination be placed into their proper perspective. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Perry: Well, I think there may be more bone apparently lost than is actully lost in the X-rays. We don't know when those X-rays were taken. Dr. Humes, do you by chance know at what phase of the autopsy the X-rays were taken? Were these taken before the brain was removed or after? Dr. Humes: Yes. All of the X-rays were taken before any manipulations were performed. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...tml/Image06.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life, which was in conflict with the statements of both Finck and Humes, as well as the original autopsy report signed by Boswell. I believe Boswell was confiusing the reconstruction of the exit hole using the three fragments brought to them late in the autopsy, with the entrance wound near the EOP, which Humes and Finck reported as a round hole throught the bone. (This matches the hole in the photo we're discussing.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...ges/Image05.gif "Regarding the head wound, DR. BOSWELL said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head." http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite what most think, a person can "have their hole" and yet not have a WHOLE HOLE. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life, which was in conflict with the statements of both Finck and Humes, as well as the original autopsy report signed by Boswell. I believe Boswell was confiusing the reconstruction of the exit hole using the three fragments brought to them late in the autopsy, with the entrance wound near the EOP, which Humes and Finck reported as a round hole throught the bone. (This matches the hole in the photo we're discussing.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...ges/Image05.gif "Regarding the head wound, DR. BOSWELL said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head." http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite what most think, a person can "have their hole" and yet not have a WHOLE HOLE. "Regarding the head wounds he said the entry hole was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...ges/Image08.gif -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life, which was in conflict with the statements of both Finck and Humes, as well as the original autopsy report signed by Boswell. I believe Boswell was confiusing the reconstruction of the exit hole using the three fragments brought to them late in the autopsy, with the entrance wound near the EOP, which Humes and Finck reported as a round hole throught the bone. (This matches the hole in the photo we're discussing.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...ges/Image05.gif "Regarding the head wound, DR. BOSWELL said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head." http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036b.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Despite what most think, a person can "have their hole" and yet not have a WHOLE HOLE. "Regarding the head wounds he said the entry hole was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in." http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...tml/Image08.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 And although his further testimony ends abruptly, Dr. Finck certainly knew where the entry wound into the scalp as well as skull was located. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb...tml/Image02.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Unger Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 F8-Orientation. http://www.zimmermanjfk.com/frontmenu_000033.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 27, 2006 Author Share Posted January 27, 2006 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0031a.htm"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone" http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0032a.htm "Received as separate specimans from Dallas, Tex, are three fragments of skull bone which in aggregate roughly approximate the dimensions of the large defect described above." Tom, I believe you're being deceptive here. This tempo-parietal-occipital wound represents what Boswell initially interpreted as the exit, not the entrance. Your attempt to defend Boswell's memory is noted but the fact remains that Boswell's memory is less than accurate. He moved the back wound onto the neck AFTER looking at the photos which proved it was on the back. Similarly, in disagreement with Finck, Humes, and everyone else, he got it in his head that they used the bone frags brought in by the SS to complete the ENTRANCE wound, when everyone else remembers that it was the exit wound. The testimony you cited above even shows this. The x-rays were taken first, BEFORE any manipulations were performed, and NO skull x-rays were taken afterwards. This reveals that the bones at the back of the head were fractured, but under the scalp, when the autopsy commenced. It seems likely then that Boswell remembered the v-shaped crack which approaches the bullet hole in the mystery photo. Perhaps he remembered Humes holding one of the pieces of bone that fell to the table up against that crack to see how it fit. We must remember that Boswell had virtually no experience with gunshot wounds and that it was Finck who actually determined entrance and exit. Boswell merely took notes. He may very well have misunderstood what he heard, and then rememberd correctly what he'd never understood properly to begin with. In any event, there is no reason to believe that Boswell's memory of reconstructing the entrance wound is correct, unless you're ready to say that Humes, Finck, and Ebersole are lying, and that the x-rays and mystery photo are fake. Why would anyone go to such trouble? Perhaps in a different thread you can explain once again why the WC would cover up the fact that Oswald did it, by falsifying the re-enactment etc... I understand your point that Oswald could have performed the shooting given enough time. I understand your point that Johnson might have wanted to cover up the fact that it was a racially motivated crime. I don't necessarily agree but there is a rational basis for these thoughts. But I still fail to grasp why they would fake the re-enactment and the map of Dealey Plaza. Why would they want their conclusions to appear shakey if there was as much evidence for Oswald's guilt as you claim? Was the WC trying to sabotage their own investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0031a.htm "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone" http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0032a.htm "Received as separate specimans from Dallas, Tex, are three fragments of skull bone which in aggregate roughly approximate the dimensions of the large defect described above." Tom, I believe you're being deceptive here. This tempo-parietal-occipital wound represents what Boswell initially interpreted as the exit, not the entrance. Your attempt to defend Boswell's memory is noted but the fact remains that Boswell's memory is less than accurate. He moved the back wound onto the neck AFTER looking at the photos which proved it was on the back. Similarly, in disagreement with Finck, Humes, and everyone else, he got it in his head that they used the bone frags brought in by the SS to complete the ENTRANCE wound, when everyone else remembers that it was the exit wound. The testimony you cited above even shows this. The x-rays were taken first, BEFORE any manipulations were performed, and NO skull x-rays were taken afterwards. This reveals that the bones at the back of the head were fractured, but under the scalp, when the autopsy commenced. It seems likely then that Boswell remembered the v-shaped crack which approaches the bullet hole in the mystery photo. Perhaps he remembered Humes holding one of the pieces of bone that fell to the table up against that crack to see how it fit. We must remember that Boswell had virtually no experience with gunshot wounds and that it was Finck who actually determined entrance and exit. Boswell merely took notes. He may very well have misunderstood what he heard, and then rememberd correctly what he'd never understood properly to begin with. In any event, there is no reason to believe that Boswell's memory of reconstructing the entrance wound is correct, unless you're ready to say that Humes, Finck, and Ebersole are lying, and that the x-rays and mystery photo are fake. Why would anyone go to such trouble? Perhaps in a different thread you can explain once again why the WC would cover up the fact that Oswald did it, by falsifying the re-enactment etc... I understand your point that Oswald could have performed the shooting given enough time. I understand your point that Johnson might have wanted to cover up the fact that it was a racially motivated crime. I don't necessarily agree but there is a rational basis for these thoughts. But I still fail to grasp why they would fake the re-enactment and the map of Dealey Plaza. Why would they want their conclusions to appear shakey if there was as much evidence for Oswald's guilt as you claim? Was the WC trying to sabotage their own investigation? Tom, I believe you're being deceptive here. This tempo-parietal-occipital wound represents what Boswell initially interpreted as the exit, not the entrance.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We will not even expend the time discussing the wound which the Parkland Dr.'s observed at the rear/back/base of the head. The portion of the autopsy report is provided, as stated, to demonstrate that there is little if any conflict between Parkland and the autopsy. Initial examination revealed an area of missing scalp and bone which extended into the occipital regions. This has no bearing on what Humes and the others later determined to be the point of entrance and/or exit. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your attempt to defend Boswell's memory is noted but the fact remains that Boswell's memory is less than accurate.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Although I am certain that not unlike most of us, Dr. Boswell's memory continues to fade and blend together, there is no attempt on my part to "defend" what Dr. Boswell has stated. Not only to me, but also to the HSCA. His statement to the HSCA corresponds almost exactly what he told me some years later. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Tom is repeating something Boswell said later in life----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Boswell stated it to the HSCA and repeated virtually the exact same thing to me. He did however qualify it in our discussion, in that he stated that if he remembered correctly that the half-moon piece of bone was one of those pieces which was brought in separately. However, he could not now be certain that it was not one of those pieces of bone which fell out of the occipital area of the wound when the scalp was reflected. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- He moved the back wound onto the neck AFTER looking at the photos which proved it was on the back------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This one completely baffles me! I am aware of the "wording" change by our appointed President, Gerald Ford, as regards "moving" of the wound locations. I am not aware of Dr. Boswell, or for that matter any of the autopsy surgeons having moved any wounds. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Similarly, in disagreement with Finck, Humes, and everyone else, he got it in his head that they used the bone frags brought in by the SS to complete the ENTRANCE wound,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First off, to a large extent, Dr. Boswell appears to have been about the only persons there who was attempting to get things correct. Humes made absolutely no drawings of anything, that we are aware of. Secondly, anything which Dr. Finck has to say as regards the early phase of examination of the body, as well as the X-ray's of the head, etc. is merely "hearsay" on his part, since by his own testimony he did not arrive on the scene until after the brain of JFK had been removed. Thereafter, the testimony of Dr. Finck is quite explicit in his examination of the bullet entrance hole through the scalp in the EOP vicinity, as well as having looked inside the skull and observed the "bevelling" on the inner table of the skull bone for the entrance and exit of the bullet at the rear of the skull. All that Dr. Humes states is that during the course of the autopsy, three additional bone fragments were received from Dallas, TX, and that these three fragments constituted a large portion of the skull bone which was initially absent from the head of JFK. And, his initial examination included an area of missing skull which extended into the occipital region. Dr. Humes statements are not adequately explicit to demonstrate whether any portion of the three bone fragments received represented that portion which Dr. Boswell states contained one-half of the bullet entrance wound. And in that regards, neither Dr. Humes nor anyone else states in exactly what sequencing these pieces of bone were received. All that Dr. Humes states is receiving three specimens separately.---Not as to whether all were received at one single time, or otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- when everyone else remembers that it was the exit wound----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since Finck was neither present when these fragments arrived, nor when these fragments were replaced for the X-rays, his memory of these events would be considered only marginally better than mine. There is little doubt that the bone fragment which contained the "Exit" bevelling and metallic residue embedded into it is one of those three fragments received. This one appears to be one of the few areas in which all three autopsy surgeons agree. Due to the incomplete nature of Dr. Humes reporting, as well as "memories" as you have stated, we have only the word of Dr. Boswell as regards the half-moon bone fragment which contained one-half of the EOP entry wound. And, since Dr. Boswell was apparantly the only one there who seemed to understand the importance of making drawings; that he drew a rough sketch of the skull, missing area, fracture lines at the base of the skull, and the small half-moon fragment which contained one-half of the entry wound, rest assured that I am considerably more impressed with the work of Dr. Boswell than that of Dr. Humes and Dr. Finck. Were it not for the two drawings made by Dr. Boswell, the available evidence would be beyond the capability to rationally and logically piece together most of what transpired during the course of the autopsy. Dr. Humes "second generation" handwritten notes are considerably incomplete, and not unlike most of the WC statements and testimony, missing considerable content and context. And although Dr, Humes no doubt, not unlike Dr. Finck, had come to rely entirely on photographic and X-ray evidence, we know what the lack/loss of this evidence has created. At least Dr. Boswell created "at the scene" drawings which are now a key element in demonstrating that the WC has misrepresented facts of the assassination. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The x-rays were taken first, BEFORE any manipulations were performed, and NO skull x-rays were taken afterwards. This reveals that the bones at the back of the head were fractured, but under the scalp, when the autopsy commenced. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JFK was brought into the autopsy room. 2. A "preliminary" examination was conducted. 3. Dr. Boswell made his drawing (CE397) during this preliminary examination. 4. At some point between the preliminary examination and the X-rays, three various/separate bone fragments were brought into the examination room. 5. These bone fragments, to the extent possible, were completely replaced in their appropriate location on the skull of JFK. 6. The autopsy X-rays were taken. The "manipulations" to which is referred, has nothing to do with the replacement of the bone fragments prior to the X-Rays. This reference is to brain removal and/or any surgical extensions of the scalp tissue and/or cutting of the skull bone necessary in order to remove the brain. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We must remember that Boswell had virtually no experience with gunshot wounds ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commander BOSWELL - I am the Chief of Pathology at the National Naval Medical School. Having been on the "receiving end" of gunshot wounds, one could state that I am "experienced". However this certainly does not qualify me to discuss the pathological aspects of such wounds. From his testimony, I have no way of knowing if Dr. Boswell has ever been on the "receiving" end of this type of experience. However, knowing a little about the military experience, I can assure you that Dr. Boswell, in his career, would have observed and no doubt treated a few gunshot wound victims, as well as the fact that not unlike all Officer Branches of the military services, he would have been required to continue his educational training in all aspects of pathology in order to have achieved the position which he held. One does not become the "Chief/Head" Surgeon without experience, and one can also rest assured that Dr. Boswell achieved his position as a result of his qualifications; experience; and training. Not to mention that even a functional idiot can understand the principal of "bevelling" in bone tissue. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In any event, there is no reason to believe that Boswell's memory of reconstructing the entrance wound is correct,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Boswell was there at the time of the initial examination, Finck was not. Dr. Boswell made the only drawing off the head & bone fragment which we have. Dr. Boswell made the only autopsy face sheet drawing which we have. Dr. Boswell drew a straight line into the entrance hole in the bone fragment. Dr. Boswell recalled and testified to completion of the entrance hole once the fragment was re-inserted. By comparison, one must thereafter take a look at the excellent reporting and documentation which we have from Dr. Finck. Although he claims to have made notes, and thereafter given these notes to Dr. Humes, we have nothing here and he has not, even from memory, attempted to recall and present the content and/or context of the notes. It would appear that without the notes of Dr. Finck as well as Dr. Boswell, Dr. Humes report would have basically included little more than JFK was shot in the head and died. What did Humes do with Finck's notes, under the assumption that Finck's testimony is accurate? Even Hume's "re-written" hand notes are incomplete as far as providing a satisfactory verbal description of the wounds of JFK. Where is the discussion of steel probes having been inserted into the back wound? Where is the discussion of "we think we made a mistake", and I therefore changed the trach incision to an exit wound, even though when we all left at the time of the autopsy, we all agreed that there was no exit wound for the "back" entry bullet. Where is the description of the steel probe in the back wound being observed inside the chest cavity, pushing on the parietal pluera in the bruised area of this membrane. Where is the description that fabric was carried into the back wound of JFK entering bullet which struck JFK in the back. If one makes an attempt to resolve the wound issues by going only by what Humes has told us, or wrote down for us, TOO BAD! You will get virtually nowhere. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps in a different thread you can explain once again why the WC would cover up the fact that Oswald did it, by falsifying the re-enactment etc--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GOOD OLE BOY POLITICS! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rather than confuse the issue of the EOP wound, and since it answers many of the questions related to the assassination, it would be far better to continue to understand and explain the relevance of this wound first. It plays a key element in all aspects of the assassination, as well as the WC lie. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) Tom, your contention that the bone fragments received from Dallas after the autopsy began were placed back into Kennedy's skull before the x-rays were taken is fanciful. You've simply made it up. There is no record that such a thing happened. The x-rays were taken first, in order to try and locate the bullets believed to be within Kennedy's body and skull. The skull fragments were brought in much later, AFTER Finck had long been there, and x-rayed SEPARATELY. You really need to re-read the testimony of Humes, Finck, Ebersole, etc. You might also enjoy reading Finck's letters to Blumberg, which were, by the way, written from his notes. http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb...tml/Image00.htm History Matters Archive - MD 28 - Reports From LtCol Finck to Gen. Blumberg (1/25/65 and 2/1/65), pg You clearly have some need to believe in Boswell. Against all common sense. Please see the Face Sheet Comparison in the Examining the Examinations section of my presentation. It shows 3 face sheets made by Boswell and proves that he consistently moved the back wound further and further up the neck even after he saw the photos proving it was on the back. When shown the photo again by the ARRB, he admitted he'd been wrong, and now said the wound was around T-2, even LOWER than was determined by the HSCA, and almost certainly too low for the SBT to float. As far as the large head wound being occipital, well, once the scalp was reflected, large pieces of skull fell to the table. This exposed a large hole which stretched all the way back into the occipital region. This doesn't mean that the exit hole in the scalp strecthed back this far. Furthermore, there were NO bones from the occipital region found outside the body. Unless you believe the autopsy photos have been altered, how can you possibly believe a bone from the back of Kennedy's head blew out the hole by his temple? Does this even seem possible? If you really believe occipiital bones were blown out from the skull, retrieved on the street and then placed back into the skull to be x-rayed then you have no business criticizing others for believing in body alteration, etc. Edited January 28, 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