Jump to content
The Education Forum

Where is the massive back head wound?


Recommended Posts

Ashton is wrong, there is a third option. The photos are not fake. The doctors did not spew scripted lies. The third option is that the doctors saying the wound was on the back of the head were innocently mistaken. I studied this and found that these kinds of mistakes have been studied and documented. We look at words all day long, but have tremendous difficulty reading upside down. Similarly, we have tremendous difficulty determining relative distances on objects normally seen upright, when they are laid flat. A wound behind the ear while laying flat was interpreted as being a wound behind the ear while upright. The Bethesda witnesses were discussing the back of the skull after the brain had been removed and as it is seen in the open-cranium photo. That's it.

Pat,

What is your opinion of Saundra Spencer? She was in charge of the White House Photo Lab at the Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia, and told the ARRB that on 11/23/63 she developed photos for a federal agent named Fox, which included a photo of "a wound in the back of the President's head which she described as a 'blown out chunk' about 2 to 2.5 inches wide located in about the center of the back of the President's head, about 3 or 4 inches above the hairline at the back of his head" (ARRB Contact Profile, 12/13/95).

Ron

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The photos are not fake. The doctors did not spew scripted lies.

I love it how people cherry pick the evidence.

What about the 15 people who described the back wound at T3, Pat?

That is inconvenient to your T1 pet theory -- so they were delusional?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's Educational Forum Fairy Tale:

Sycophantic CIA golum, gofer, boy toy, and hand-puppet Darlin' Arlen Specter got to see the SS medical photos—but John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles didn't. How do we know? Well—Darliin' Arlen sez so, chillun. That's why Brother Speer passed it along to you as the word of God.

And it isn't to be questioned or doubted. Got it?

Ashton Gray

Link to post
Share on other sites
Today's Educational Forum Fairy Tale:

Sycophantic CIA golum, gofer, boy toy, and hand-puppet Darlin' Arlen Specter got to see the SS medical photos—but John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles didn't. How do we know? Well—Darliin' Arlen sez so, chillun. That's why Brother Speer passed it along to you as the word of God.

And it isn't to be questioned or doubted. Got it?

Ashton Gray

Someone should take the time to put all your silly off-the-wall ramblings together so people can read them in one post ... and to think you were afraid of someone else making you look silly.

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopelessly contradictory "facts," glaring omissions, gratuitous irrelevant details, falsehoods, and altered sequences are illogics that form the iridescent trail of madmen.

It is a fool's game to attempt to find reason, rationality, or logic in such mad illogics. They are traps laid by madmen specifically to snare reason and rationality and hold it fast in the hopes of covering their tracks. But the illogics are their tracks. They are effective as traps only when the rational attempt to find logic where there only is illogic. Then they are hopelessly inescapable traps.

The only rational advance comes in recognizing an illogic for just what it is, not falling into it, and following the trail of illogics to the source. And that is the source of the madness.

The "medical evidence" is a mine field of illogics that leads directly back to the Warren Commission, but doesn't stop at the Warren Commission.

Ashton Gray

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doctors are least likely to make mistakes like this. They are scientifically trained. Which is why 'rear of' 'in front of' to a Doctor means a relationship. A doctor, speaking as a doctor but to an uneducated audience might very well use colloquial terms but the meaning may very well be in Doctorese. Every part of the body, irrespective of whether it is in the front or in the back, has an anterior and a posterior. Behind the ear doesn't necessarily locate anything except to say that on a lateral plane it is anterior of the ear (presumably of the anterior portion of the ear.).

When an uneducated person tries to wring an answer out of a Doctor, an answer that may suit is found . That doesn't mean that the answer found by the questioner is the answer the Doctor gave, and it doesn't necessarily mean the Doctor gave the wrong answer either.

Scenario: the Doctor locates a posterior temporal wound. Tells another Doctor or nurse. this person then tells a questioner (realising that the questioner doesn't understand posterior so switches to back) that the wound was in the back of the side of the head, indicating with a hand gesture, this person rushes off and tells the media : the wound was in the back of the head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hopelessly contradictory "facts," glaring omissions, gratuitous irrelevant details, falsehoods, and altered sequences are illogics that form the iridescent trail of madmen.

It is a fool's game to attempt to find reason, rationality, or logic in such mad illogics. They are traps laid by madmen specifically to snare reason and rationality and hold it fast in the hopes of covering their tracks. But the illogics are their tracks. They are effective as traps only when the rational attempt to find logic where there only is illogic. Then they are hopelessly inescapable traps.

I thought we had already gotten past your flawed 3D graphics and mass hallucination theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doctors are least likely to make mistakes like this. They are scientifically trained. Which is why 'rear of' 'in front of' to a Doctor means a relationship. A doctor, speaking as a doctor but to an uneducated audience might very well use colloquial terms but the meaning may very well be in Doctorese. Every part of the body, irrespective of whether it is in the front or in the back, has an anterior and a posterior. Behind the ear doesn't necessarily locate anything except to say that on a lateral plane it is anterior of the ear (presumably of the anterior portion of the ear.).

That's why terms like avulsed bones and occipital bone was used ... anyone can get a diagram off the Internet and see where that location is on the skull just as easy as finding out where the cerebellum is located. No, the doctors in Dallas were not bafoons - the bafoons are those people who consider mass hallucinations took place or don't find anything wrong with 3D views that don't match the real life views of Dealey Plaza.

occipital bone: the lower rear of the head a major cranial bone at the lower back of the head; covers occipital lobe of the brain

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

An extremely brief timeline excerpt, surely of no real consequence:

  • Thursday, 1 August 1963
    FBI conducts raids at Farm Bouchet Munitions Dump, Slidell, and Covington, Louisiana of purported training sites for anti-Castro Cubans. There are only confiscations of firearms and munitions—no arrests. [NOTE: The raids take place over the next few days, through 3 August 1963.]
    Sunday, 4 August 1963
    Diana Hamilton Bowron arrives in Dallas, Texas from England. For no known reason, this British transplant has been put on a one-year contract to work in the emergency room at Parkland hospital. [NOTE: Bowron will just happen to be the emergency room nurse who will attend John F. Kennedy's arrival at Parkland Hospital less than four months later, on 22 November 1963.]
    Monday, 5 August 1963
    Lee Harvey Oswald purportedly comes into the store of Carlos Bringuier and expresses an interest in "joining the struggle against Castro." [NOTE: There is evidence in the timeline to suggest that this event never took place, but was an alibi provided for Oswald by Bringuier.]

Now a few words from Nurse Diane Hamilton Bowron:

  • BOWRON: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head.
    QUESTION: So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was scalp actually gone?
    BOWRON: It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole.
    QUESTION: We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right?
    BOWRON: Yeah. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there.

jfkautopsyheadrearfixbig.jpg

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more quotes of note from the good Nurse Bowron, first from her Warren Commission deposition of 24 March 1964:

  • SPECTER: And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
    BOWRON: He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
    SPECTER: You saw the condition of his what?
    BOWRON: The back of his head.
    SPECTER: And what was that condition?
    BOWRON: Well, it was very bad---you know.
    SPECTER: How many holes did you see?
    BOWRON: I just saw one large hole.
    SPECTER: ...Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?
    BOWRON: No, sir.
    SPECTER: ...Did you ever see his [John F. Kennedy's] neck prior to the time you removed the trach tube?
    BOWRON: No, sir.

And now from a 1993 letter:

  • "I saw that there was a massive amount of blood on the back seat and in order to find the cause I lifted his head and my fingers went into a large wound in the back of his head; I turned his head and seeing the size of the wound realized that I could not stop the bleeding. I turned his head back and saw an entry wound in the front of the throat... ."

Diana Hamilton Bowron lied in her letter, or lied under oath, or—most likely—both. Diana Hamilton Bowron is impeached. She is a xxxx.

The timeline suggests extremely curious circumstances and timing surrounding her arrival from England at Parkland Hospital Emergency room in Dallas, Texas.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now a few words from Nurse Diane Hamilton Bowron:

  • BOWRON: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head.

QUESTION: So, in this massive hole, was there a flap of scalp there, or was scalp actually gone?

BOWRON: It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole.

QUESTION: We're talking about scalp first, and then bone, right?

BOWRON: Yeah. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there.

Aubrey Rike was the ambulance driver who helped lift the President's body and place him in the coffin ia on record as saying that he held his hand on the back of the President's head as they moved him to the coffin and he noted that the back of jFK's head felt like a wet sponge. Walt Brown writes after an interview with Rike - Soon thereafter, Rike helped put JFK in the expensive coffin [which would later be returned to Texas and serve as the burial place for someone else...], and in the process noted a great deal of blood, a jagged hole, and the ability to feel brain material--all when holding the back of the president's head.

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

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.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
The level of nastiness and religiosity involved in this issue is truly amazing. Here, when I try to defend them, and denounce Ashton's ridiculous assertion that all the doctors, including the Parkland doctors were controlled and forced to go along with a scripted lie that the wound was on the back of the head, Miller and Varnell attack me as naive. What the? Take the time and read what people are saying, will ya? If Miller and Varnell honestly believe that the Parkland doctors were forced to lie about the wound location, starting with their earliest reports, I'll eat my hat. No, better yet, I'll eat Ashton's hat.

No, Pat, I'm not taking you to task for sticking up for the witnesses. You have, once

again, attributed to me an argument I haven't made.

I am a champion of the first day witnesses.

I am taking you to task for exactly what I quoted you as saying:

It's ridiculous to think the WC covered up the location of the back wound while simultaneously deliberately sowing confusion about the head wound.
You're sticking up for the Warren Commission's wound conclusions, are you not?

Aren't you expressing contempt for the should-be-oh-so-obvious fact that the Warren

Commission covered up, deliberately sowed confusion, and otherwise acted as accessories

after the fact of JFK's murder?

Got it. It's a miscommunication. My line about sowing confusion was not meant as a reference to sowing confusion in general, but specifically to Ashton's assertion that all the doctors, including the Parkland doctors, were given a script to follow, and that this script included references to wound on the back of the head, even though everyone involved knew it wasn't there. I was trying to say that it was ridiculous to assert such a thing, as having the wound be on the back of the head only hurt the government's case for a single shooter. Presumably, although it's tough to say for certain due to his slipperiness, Ashton believes the CIA wrote a script saying the wound was on the back of the head when they knew it was on the front of the head, in order to mess with the minds of latter-day researchers, and sow confusion. Those not familiar with his writings on Watergate might not realize the master thesis of his work--and that is that virtually everything we've been told about Watergate and the assassination, including all the contradictions, have been scripted and controlled by the CIA from the very beginning, in order to throw us off the track of what's really going on. Spooky.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Dec 29 2006, 12:43 AM' post='86692']

Thank you, Gary.

The autopsy photos contradict. This "back of the head" Fox 5 photo

stands as a proven fake.

back.jpg

The above cannot be reconciled with the other autopsy photos

or the witness statements; nor can the back wound location be

reconciled with the holes in JFK's clothing + the Dealey Plaza photos

that conclusively show that JFK's jacket dropped a good inch right

before he was shot.

Also, look at the size of the bone plate in the Zapruder film and try finding one that large in any of the autopsy photos ... something is not right! possibly Humes's observation that surgery had been to the head may offer some clues. Paul O'Conner said the President arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket and Jerrol Custer was taking the President's Xray's through Bethesda when Jackie pulled up in front of the entrance to the naval hospital. To support these individuals is a reciept stating that the President arrived at BNH in a shipping casket. The shipping casket is the casket that Dennis David's team carried into the morgue. On the following Monday after the assassination there had been quiet talk going around the hospital about the President and how a decoy casket had been used. Dennis David (to satisfy his own curiosity) had asked Boswell which casket had contained the President's body and Boswell replied words to the effect, 'You should know, you helped escort it into the morgue.' In the event anyone missed it - Dennis lead the team that brought in the gray shipping casket.

Bill Miller

The autopsy photos are fakes. Bill you state above "Humes' observation that surgery had been to the head...". I know that Speacial Agents (FBI) James Silbert and Frank O'Neill made this observation in their report. I have never read/heard that Humes made a similar observation. I first read of this in 1974 and it always stayed with me, back then there were no autopsy photos (fake or real) to observe. Then in the early 80's David Lifton makes an excellent case for body alteration in Best Evidence.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...