Where is the massive back head wound?

[Robin Unger]

Robinson HSCA testimony

3" Hole the size of an orange.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Robin Unger

[Ashton Gray]

"The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might."

—Mark Twain

Asthton Gray

Edited January 4, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ed O'Hagan]

What Jacqueline Kennedy describes is exactly what I see depicted in the Zapruder film. I don't know how it could be any more exact. Now, I'm talking about what I see. I'm not telling anyone else what to see. But I have no compunctions whatsoever about stating what I see, here, in this clip from Z:321 to Z:330:

The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing from Z.321-330 ( in .55 seconds).Physiologically and neurologically impossible !

Her husband's head has just exploded only inches away from the front of her face, and yet we see not the least evidence of a startle reponse. In fact, paradoxically what we see is the direct opposite. Her eyes are open not closed, which they should be. Her movements are coordinated , not uncoordinated, which they should be. Her movement and the turn of her head are towards the source of the unexpected 'explosion' of JFK's head and not away from it, which they should be. Muscular control and coordination cannot be regained in so short a space of time. What is being depicted defies logic. The frames have ben 'doctored'. It's a sheer waste of time and energy accepting them as being other than fraudulent, and then engaging in all kinds of useless arguments relating to their significance and/or interpretation.

In short, many are engaging in precisely what the WC, the HSCA, and the Zapruder film intended them to do, namely running in circles and getting nowhere. ...And, lamentably, so it will continue !

[Bill Miller]

Her husband's head has just exploded only inches away from the front of her face, and yet we see not the least evidence of a startle reponse.

Ed ... the things you say - I swear!

Bill Miller

[Ed O'Hagan]

What Jacqueline Kennedy describes is exactly what I see depicted in the Zapruder film. I don't know how it could be any more exact. Now, I'm talking about what I see. I'm not telling anyone else what to see. But I have no compunctions whatsoever about stating what I see, here, in this clip from Z:321 to Z:330:

The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing from Z.321-330 ( in .55 seconds).Physiologically and neurologically impossible !

Her husband's head has just exploded only inches away from the front of her face, and yet we see not the least evidence of a startle reponse. In fact, paradoxically what we see is the direct opposite. Her eyes are open not closed, which they should be. Her movements are coordinated , not uncoordinated, which they should be. Her movement and the turn of her head are towards the source of the unexpected 'explosion' of JFK's head and not away from it, which they should be. Muscular control and coordination cannot be regained in so short a space of time. What is being depicted defies logic. The frames have ben 'doctored'. It's a sheer waste of time and energy accepting them as being other than fraudulent, and then engaging in all kinds of useless arguments relating to their significance and/or interpretation.

In short, many are engaging in precisely what the WC, the HSCA, and the Zapruder film intended them to do, namely running in circles and getting nowhere. ...And, lamentably, so it will continue !

Notice that I stated, "The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing from Z.321-330 ( in .55 seconds). Physiologically and neurologically impossible !"

The point being, that the human startle response cannot be resolved in a matter of .45 seconds, and what we should see is its continuance right through Z. #321-330. The total running time involved between Z.#313 and Z.# 330 is as close to 1 second as can be. If anyone thinks that a human head can be blown apart in one's face, and then less than a 1/2 second later the effects of the shock, disorientation and loss of muscular control have already run their course to the extent of what we see depicted from Z.321-330, then they must have been born yesterday.

The Z. # 321-330 sequence of frames was 'doctored'. That's what I claimed , and I stand by it.

The relevant section of Z. #321 is attached below. Taking a long serious look at it may suggest to viewers why the 'doctoring' had to be done. I'll return to discuss that specific frame later, and very likely by means of opening a new thread.

To begin, look carefully at the image of Jackie's hair on her left side:

[Bill Miller]

Notice that I stated, "The fatal head shot had just occurred only .45 seconds earlier , and yet Jackie was able to accomplish what we see her doing fromZ.321-330 ( in .55 seconds). Physiologically and neurologically impossible !"

The point being, that the human startle response cannot be resolved in a matter of .45 seconds, and what we should see is its continuance right through Z. #321-330. The total running time involved between Z.#313 and Z.# 330 is as close to 1 second as can be. If anyone thinks that a human head can be blown apart in one's face, and then less than a 1/2 second later the effects of the shock, disorientation and loss of muscular control have already run their course to the extent of what we see depicted from Z.321-330, then they must have been born yesterday.

Ed, not to be rude, but people like Cyril Wecht has seen the Zapruder film and knows more information about the human body can and cannot do in the stools he passes than you or I will ever know if we were to put our heads together and he has never said that Jackie reacted in any way that was unnormal. Could it be that the head exploded on the top right side of JFK's head away from where Jackie's face was located, thus she avoided much of the force of the spray? I personally do not think that you have enough information to be correct about her not being able to react the way she did, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Bill

Edited January 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ashton Gray]

As shepherds seek to herd this topic off into a discussion of Jacqueline Kennedy's coif, boisterous unproven claims of Zapruder film fakery, and nebulous speculative sermons about proper body etiquette at moments of unprecedented horror, I would like to recap some actual evidence of record:

Here are eight frames from the Zapruder film showing the back of JFK's head:

And here again is Secret Service agent Fox's photo of the back of JFK's head:

Let's go through the simplicity of it one more time.

Either:

• 1. All of the images posted above have been retouched to remove all traces of a massive, gaping hole that was in the back of John F. Kennedy's head, or,
  2. All of the testimony claiming there was a massive, gaping hole in the back of John F. Kennedy's head is false.
  

It's just that simple. When "facts" contradict each other, at least one of them is false (sometimes both are false, and the truth is still being hidden).

In the instant issue, we have sets of facts contradicting each other. The same principle applies.

Earlier there was an assertion of "mass hallucination" by all the Parkland Hospital personnel concerning a large hole having been in the back of John F. Kennedy's head. I have documented in this thread that there was no such "mass hallucination."

In fact, the number of remaining proximate eye witnesses who have continued to assert the existence of a "large hole" in the back of John F. Kennedy's head, as compared to the right side of his head, are few.

One of them is nurse Diana Bowron. Ms. Bowron had arrived in Dallas, Texas all the way from England in early August 1963, less than four months before the assassination, to spend one year only working in the Parkland Hospital emergency room. It is Ms. Bowron's testimony that she got the temporary job at Parkland Hospital by "answering an ad" in the newspaper. Apparently, Parkland Hospital was investing advertising dollars in newspapers in England for temporary employees in their emergency room, or so we are to believe. Why would be anybody's guess. (Except mine.)

Ms. Bowron also has the dubious distinction of having lied about when and where, or even if, she saw an alleged "bullet" wound in the throat of John F. Kennedy. That is being more fully explored in the thread called Throat Wound. That she lied is inarguable. Why she lied is anybody's guess. (Except mine.)

Another of the medical personnel persistently insisting on a considerable hole the back of John F. Kennedy's head is Dr. Malcolm Perry. Malcolm Perry is the doctor who performed the artful tracheotomy that destroyed forever all evidence of any alleged throat "bullet wound" (the same purported wound that Ms. Bowron lied about).

In September 1962 Malcolm Perry had left for a year away from Parkland Hospital on a course of study in San Francisco. He returned to Parkland in September 1963—not long after Ms. Bowron had arrived from England.

There are several others who have insisted that a hole was in the back of John F. Kennedy's head, one of them being veteran FBI agent Sibert, who was present at the autopsy. He drew a picture of where this alleged hole was, and drew it squarely centered in the back of the head, saying it had been the size of an orange. An FBI agent who stood right next to Sibert in the autopsy also drew a picture of a hole in the "back" of the head—but drew it all the way over on the right side of the "back" of the head so it visually was a thin oval on the drawing.

They stood side-by-side in the same autopsy, then contradicted each other on the location of the head wound. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Then, in contrast to the few verbal claims by proximate eyewitnesses, there is the visual evidence I've placed at the top of this message.

There have been a number of strident claims that carefully picked single frames of the Zapruder film show some sort of deformity to the back of John F. Kennedy's head that just has to be a big hole in the back of his head. I have demonstrated in this thread that the alleged deformity in one instance was nothing whatsoever but optical trickery, the "deformity" being caused by the placement of Jacqueline Kennedy's white glove in relation to the back of John F. Kennedy's head. I have demonstrated elsewhere that a very similar alleged "deformity" is seen at Z:312—which happens to be prior to the head shot—and is consistent with a reasonable configuration of Kennedy's hair at any given moment, particularly on a windy day.

In short, there is not a single image anywhere in the Zapruder film that shows conclusively anything even vaguely resembling a "large hole in the back" of John F. Kennedy's head as it has been described by a few proximate witnesses. Not one frame shows the slighest indication of the kind of darkening in the area that would have to be present if any such hole had existed. Not one frame shows anything at all that isn't consistent with hair and scalp covering the back of John F. Kennedy's head at all relevant times.

This is why I have shown a series of frames—not tried to select out one tricked frame—to demonstrate the visual consistency where the back of the head is visible in the film.

To "see" a "large hole" or "avulsion" in the back of John F. Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film requires a prior faith that such a hole is there, period. No prior faith can be attained at all without prior acceptance of testimony from certain individuals that such a hole existed.

And so the simplicity, again, is that testimony and "drawings" of a large hole or avulsion in the back of John F. Kennedy's head contradict the visual evidence of record.

Both cannot be true. One or the other is false. Either the die-hard claimants of a large hole in the back of John F. Kennedy's head have lied about it, or the available visual evidence all has been faked.

It's that simple.

Ashton Gray

[Ron Ecker]

I guess I've been under the mistaken impression all these years that the back of JFK's head in the Z film is in shadow, the sun being where it was. It seems reasonable to me that a dark hole might not be discernible in such dark shadow on a moving head in a film taken with a 1963 home movie camera. But of course I could be wrong. But I don't think that I am, nor do I think that all the people at Parkland (and, might I add, at Bethesda) who were physically present and did see a back head wound, up fairly close and in real time, were wrong either.

[Bill Miller]

I guess I've been under the mistaken impression all these years that the back of JFK's head in the Z film is in shadow, the sun being where it was. It seems reasonable to me that a dark hole might not be discernible in such dark shadow on a moving head in a film taken with a 1963 home movie camera. But of course I could be wrong. But I don't think that I am, nor do I think that all the people at Parkland (and, might I add, at Bethesda) who were physically present and did see a back head wound, up fairly close and in real time, were wrong either.

I await the day that Ashton will post something showing that he consulted anyone with any knowledge of motion blur and its effects on a film like Zapruder's and apply that to his position. One really has to wonder why someone would purposely avoid educating themselves so to hold onto such a position ... maybe its so to be able to claim the Zapruder film is altered.

Below is an image of a man's face and chest that is not in shadow and by applying a slight amount of blur to the image one cannot even see the large flesh tone areas any more that were never embedded in hair. Even the highly visible area around Groden's mouth all but vanishes ... if one could them put the sun behind Groden so to put his face in shadow ... not a hint of a mouth ever being present would be seen.

Bill Miller

Edited January 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Guest Gary Loughran]

And the ruler(bottom photo post #157), Ashton, is hiding an entry wound from a high source position; left of the TSBD, possibly the courts building???

Bill/Ron et. al. Irrespective of shadows, light sources, avulsions, motion blur etc. which may or may not show an exit wound on Kennedy's head in the Z film; where is the explosive exit wound hole, in the top right of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photograph referenced above?

Many Thanks

Gary

Edited January 6, 2007 by Gary Loughran

[Bill Miller]

And the ruler(bottom photo post #137), Ashton, is hiding an entry wound from a high source position; left of the TSBD, possibly the courts building???

Bill/Ron et. al. Irrespective of shadows, light sources, avulsions, motion blur etc. which may or may not show an exit wound on Kennedy's head in the Z film; where is the explosive exit wound hole, in the top right of Kennedy's head in the autopsy photograph referenced above?

Many Thanks

Gary

The reported rear wound was between the ruler and the right ear of JFK ... the occipital/parietal area of the back of the head. The bone plate seen in the autopsy photo came from atop of the head. Z335 and Z337 where the sun catches the back of the head as Jackie is looking at it is where the bones were said to be avulsed open, thus allowing one to see down into the cerebellum portion of the brain.

Bill Miller

Edited January 6, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Terry Mauro]

I guess I've been under the mistaken impression all these years that the back of JFK's head in the Z film is in shadow, the sun being where it was. It seems reasonable to me that a dark hole might not be discernible in such dark shadow on a moving head in a film taken with a 1963 home movie camera. But of course I could be wrong. But I don't think that I am, nor do I think that all the people at Parkland (and, might I add, at Bethesda) who were physically present and did see a back head wound, up fairly close and in real time, were wrong either.

************************************************************

"I guess I've been under the mistaken impression all these years that the back of JFK's head in the Z film is in shadow, the sun being where it was. It seems reasonable to me that a dark hole might not be discernible in such dark shadow on a moving head in a film taken with a 1963 home movie camera."

I accept this as well, because I believe the Zap was spliced. But, there are going to be those who whole-heartedly believe that the Zap was not altered [frames spliced or deleted] and will continually challenge with, "Unless a stream of blood and brains can be shown on [ANYBODY'S (Zap's, Nix's, et.al.)] film to be emitting or exploding, or avulsing, from the area of JFK's skull, known as the right posterior [redundant] occiput [because the occiput is located in the lower posterior (back) of the skull, anatomically, speaking] then, there was NO large, gaping hole, as witnessed by the Parkland emergency room personnel. And, this is because some of those Parkland E.R. personnel present at the time Kennedy was brought in, either answered an ad in a newspaper, or medical journal in Great Britain, advertising for an Emergency Room position in Dallas, or else they returned to resume their position at Parkland after working at another facility in San Francisco, for less than a year. [Anybody ever heard of taking a sabbatical, or going to sit for a specialty certification?] And, since these personnel showed up in Dallas during that same time frame, 6 or 8 months prior to the assassination, any testimony entered into the record should be considered as "suspect," since they most likely were in cahoots with the perpetrators, and paid to "lie" about what they "claimed" to have witnessed on the 22nd of November 1963." And, since the Zap is ONLY depicting the right lateral temporo/parietal hemispheric flap of skull being separated from its cranial suture [located at the top of the skull], consequently there is no hole in the back of JFK's head. Accordingly, the "lie."

[Ed O'Hagan]

Following the fatal head shot, perhaps JFK's body was not exactly where the Zapruder film would have us believe it was . Here's another portion of Z.# 321 to examine:

... and the black and white rendition :

[Bill Miller]

Following the fatal head shot, perhaps JFK's body was not exactly where the Zapruder film would have us believe it was . Here's another portion of Z.# 321 to examine:

... and the black and white rendition :

Oh yes, Ed ... that clears the matter up quite nicely!

[Terry Mauro]

Well, if he stated "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there.", then where the hell was it, if it hadn't been blown out?

Since he goes on immediately to say "It was parietal bone," it seemed clear in context to me that he was saying that the bone that was there, the bone they saw, was parietal, but not occipital. Please interpret it any way you like.

Are you familiar with human anatomy and the medical terminology used to describe it, at all?

I've made a distinct and concerted effort to familiarize myself with the terminology at issue. I don't just throw it around to impress people and thereby confuse hell out of them, though. I always strive for greater clarity and understanding, not greater confusion.

And, if you think for one moment that those doctors were NOT subjected to any undue duress to change or alter their initial statements, in order that they might somehow concur with what the WCR was attempting to conclude, then you're just pissing in the wind, Mister!

Well, Dr. Carrico's statements about occipital (posterior, back of skull) bone were the ones made to the Warren Commission.

The later statements about right-side parietal were made in the 1990s.

I'm not sure whose point you're trying to make—yours or mine. Are you?

Ashton

Irony of ironies. I agree with Ashton. The comment "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone" is obviously a short-handed "I don't believe we saw any (wound in the) occipital bone." Without "any occiptal bone" the entire lower back of the skull, both left and right sides, all the way down to the spine, would be missing. No one described anywhere near that amount of damage. Therefore, there undoubtedly was occipital bone present.

*****************************************************

"The comment "I don't believe we saw any occipital bone" is obviously a short-handed "I don't believe we saw any (wound in the) occipital bone." Without "any occiptal bone" the entire lower back of the skull, both left and right sides, all the way down to the spine, would be missing."

First of all, doctors, no let me be emphatic about this, physicians aka M.D.'s, are not likely to skirt around the issue, as you [a layperson] are assuming to do, here. They would have specifically stated that the area was, or appeared to be, still "intact," NOT that "it wasn't there.", if indeed, it was still intact. Or, else they would have "specifically" stated that they hadn't examined the occiput because it appeared to have been still intact and devoid of massive laceration, as opposed to the findings in the temporo/parietal region, as having been presented at the time. That's how they report their findings on examination. If they stated, "it wasn't there." that's what they meant, "it wasn't there," in the most direct way of answering upon deposition, interrogation, or cross-examination. The "deposer," "interrogator," or "cross-examiner" should have taken it upon himself to have asked, "Could you please clarify what you meant when you stated, "It wasn't there."?"

"Without "any occipital bone" the entire lower back of the skull, both left and right sides, all the way down to the spine would be missing"

If they stated, "the right occiput," they meant the "right posterior" portion of the occiputal bone situated at the back part, and the base of the cranium that encases the occiputal lobes of the cerebrum, right and left. For all intents and purposes, the occiputal lobes of the cerebrum are considered to be posteriorly located, anatomically speaking.