Autopsy Table

[Robin Unger]

RED line indicates the back of the skull.

BLUE line indicates the front of the skull.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Robin Unger

[Frank Agbat]

Well, Robin, therein lies the rub, doesn't it? The A/P X-ray, unless we are collectively misreading it horribly would indicate noticeable and substantial frontal damage up to and including the right eye orbital. Counter to this is the *repeated* testimony by witnesses that the President did NOT have noticeable, visible frontal damage and a spate of drawings consistent with the one you posted.

There may be some reason to the theory that some - even many - of the "autopsy" photos were taken *after* the autopsy and during the reconstruction process. Several of the images show virtually no damage on the back of the skull -- even none up to the crown (such as the back wound picture). Others clearly show at least parietal damage (substantial parietal damage, perhaps extending even beyond this area). How can this be if there hasn't been some cleanup and reconstruction?

Aside -- I really need to talk to a mortician and understand their capabilities in this area. I'm not sure what is within the realm of reason when discussing 'reconstruction' and the like. Some of the autopsy pictures show a nearly intact scalp and clean, neat hair -- hardly consistent with what is seen in BE7, BE2, and BE6.

[John Dolva]

Well, Robin, therein lies the rub, doesn't it? The A/P X-ray, unless we are collectively misreading it horribly would indicate noticeable and substantial frontal damage up to and including the right eye orbital. Counter to this is the *repeated* testimony by witnesses that the President did NOT have noticeable, visible frontal damage and a spate of drawings consistent with the one you posted.

There may be some reason to the theory that some - even many - of the "autopsy" photos were taken *after* the autopsy and during the reconstruction process. Several of the images show virtually no damage on the back of the skull -- even none up to the crown (such as the back wound picture). Others clearly show at least parietal damage (substantial parietal damage, perhaps extending even beyond this area). How can this be if there hasn't been some cleanup and reconstruction?

Aside -- I really need to talk to a mortician and understand their capabilities in this area. I'm not sure what is within the realm of reason when discussing 'reconstruction' and the like. Some of the autopsy pictures show a nearly intact scalp and clean, neat hair -- hardly consistent with what is seen in BE7, BE2, and BE6.

I am of the opinion that to ease understanding one must consider that

the xrays were taken with bones in place that were not there when the headwound photo was taken.

the absence of bone in the rear and the absence of brain tissue means the left half is going to look black but that doesn't mean that there is no bone there. Just that the areas outlined have less bone and why think that that 'less bone' occurs in the front? The white areas on the left are where there are bone fragments and the frontal bone. The rest is frontal bone and air and skin tissues.

To correlate or cross reference the xray and head wound there are front bits and rear bits and they are all on a different angle. However considering this and splitting the xray makes it possible to see many common points of reference

[John Dolva]

Taking a circle of the headwound photo in the middle closest to the camera and placing it on a depth map of the forehead tilted to the direction of the headwound photo and turning it to the orientation it may have had at the time of the xp xray.

Edited January 31, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Taking a circle of the headwound photo in the middle closest to the camera and placing it on a depth map of the forehead tilted to the direction of the headwound photo and turning it to the orientation it may have had at the time of the xp xray.

It's easy to see thta as one tilts and turns the head into the correct pose that the other items of interest move into proper position for the AP xray

Edited January 31, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Taking a circle of the headwound photo in the middle closest to the camera and placing it on a depth map of the forehead tilted to the direction of the headwound photo and turning it to the orientation it may have had at the time of the xp xray.

It's easy to see that as one tilts and turns the head into the correct pose that the other items of interest move into proper position for the AP xray

improved version

[Frank Agbat]

Taking a circle of the headwound photo in the middle closest to the camera and placing it on a depth map of the forehead tilted to the direction of the headwound photo and turning it to the orientation it may have had at the time of the xp xray.

It's easy to see that as one tilts and turns the head into the correct pose that the other items of interest move into proper position for the AP xray

improved version

John,

Well done! This is the feature match that I saw the other day, but was not able to produce a suitable mapping. The key was the enhancements to the x-rays. I had identified the features you outlined in green as a likely match, but could never match the rest to the "stock" x-ray.

This also goes a long way to bolster my theory that BE7 is showing only a portion of the headwound -- the crown/posterior portion, and that there is additional anterior damage that isn't showing in BE7.

So, I think the side-effect of this is two-fold.

1 -- our BE7 orientation seems to be verifiable

2 -- the AP x-ray seems more consistent with BE7 than previously thought.

Now the problem becomes understanding the lack of facial / forehead deformity if the AP x-ray is factual...

[John Dolva]

(Absent conflicting viewpoints, I'm happy to accept this.)

I'd like to ask a question. Why should there be forehead facial damage, deformity?

_________________________________

Whatever the answer..

some things to consider. Fracturing, fragmentation, explosive cavitation, and force transmission through the skull and how a bullet behaves in this situation moves this discussion into the field of 'wound ballistics'.

This is a complex field where exact predictions are difficult, particularly when the direction from and amount of said force is applied from UNKNOWN direction/s. It is further complicated by a consideration of multiple applications of such a force. Firstly to an intact system secondly+ to a weakened system.

However there are some basic principles that apply.

for example...in a closed system...

explosive forces take paths of least resistance, for example through punctured or fragmented areas first.

while the peak forces and tissue displacements are high they retract to a much smaller end cavity/deformity.

the layers of the head are not only the skin, tissue and bone. Adhesing to the inside of the skull and separating the two hemispheres of the brain(dura mater) are tough and flexible/elastic membranes.

Edited January 31, 2006 by John Dolva

[Frank Agbat]

This is a tiny clip from the Weaver picture.

JFK's hand is not too far away from where I envision the BE7 wound. The low extent of the wound would be at about the middle fingers of his hand. In other words, matching O'Connor's sketch fairly well...

[John Dolva]

This is a tiny clip from the Weaver picture.

JFK's hand is not too far away from where I envision the BE7 wound. The low extent of the wound would be at about the middle fingers of his hand. In other words, matching O'Connor's sketch fairly well...

I don't know. I'm blissfully ignorant of whatever O'Connor (or most of the doctors) said (in detail) . I try to stay that way in order to be freer to interpret. That' just what works for me, I'm not recommending it or saying it's wrong to do otherwise. In fact it's good for confirmations and steering. All I can say is that there is a wound caused by projectile/s impacting on a closed system.

_______

"Why should there be forehead facial damage, deformity?"

This image separates the brain, the skull and theoutside surface opf the head. I've tried to scale it to the photo.

The side image of all together has the skull bone itself colored blue.

It is quite separate from the face itself. The elasticity of the lungs, sinus, nasal and mouth cavities act like a ballooon absorbing and rebounding in response to explosive cavitation.

Unless there was direct line of force sufficient to penetrate the layers here it is not surprising there is little visible damage. No doubt a microscopic tissue study would reveal extensive haemorrahge.

Similarly unless projectile or fragments thereof were directed and not deflected in any way and had sufficient force to penetrate this area there would be little visible damage on the outside,

There is however displacement and fragmentation of the bone structures in this area. If one flips a half of the right side on to theleft and lines it up and morphs between the two the damage is quite noticable. (It would be good oif a gif showing this could be produced.)

______

In the photo of Kennedy one can see the strong gust of wind that picks up Kennedys hair. He is actually looking down a lot more than may appear. Jackie grabs for her hat as well, and the flags dramatically flutter.

I think his hand covers the wound quite well. Though as you say his fingers are indicator of lower margin. Perhaps middle. Lower middle? Basically agreement there.

Edited February 1, 2006 by John Dolva

[Robin Unger]

[John Dolva]

Yep, sans direct strike its like what one would expect. Subcutaneous damage apparent by different shadows from bone displacement and/or some haemmorrhage.

The skin is actually surprisingly tough as a bullet proof material. There is a speed below which it's reasonable to assume no penetration.

Also in another thread is a description of various times when bullets have travelled at speed along the inside surface of the skull only scoring it. In one instance someone was shot with a magnum at close range through the back of the head and the bullet exited the forehead after travelling around the outside of the brain curving between it and the skull.

The reason I mention that here is to discuss a possibility that occurs by stretching the reflected skin back over the skull and noting what appears to be an elongated tunnel wound.

There is the bone at the front and the bone at the rear. It's hard to see exactly where the line is but a look at the texture of the area indicates it's not where it might seem at first.

Edited February 1, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

The Marsh collection has 3 versions of the back photo which shows a partial view of the top of the head. One of these has a slice about an inch wide showing areas I had not previously seen. The size of it indicates the possibility of more available. If so it would show a very interesting view.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Marsh.html

look under autopsy scroll down to f, (all the other sections are well worth browsing as well.)

[John Dolva]

Things that the marsh versions reveal. Probably why they are sliced off the 'official' versions

Edited February 2, 2006 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

...