Jump to content
The Education Forum

Where is the massive back head wound?


Recommended Posts

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

consistencyzap2.jpg

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

jfkautopsyheadrearfixbig.jpg

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.

Now, as entirely expected, there are three disinformation magpies who were drawn out and immediately jumped on it to make it complex and attempt to keep it all in foment and to create the greatest possible confusion around it.

But look with your eyes. It's simple. Either what is in the photographic record has been carefully and meticulously faked, or false oral testimony—without, by the way, any tiniest shred of physical evidence anywhere in existence that supports it—has been put into the record.

It's one or the other. And that's how simple it is.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 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).

But look with your eyes. It's simple. Either what is in the photographic record has been carefully and meticulously faked, or false oral testimony—without, by the way, any tiniest shred of physical evidence anywhere in existence that supports it—has been put into the record.

You have left out the third possiblity, Ashton ...

3) The back of the head shows an enormous bulge and someone like yourself hasn't bothered to spend one minute trying to figure out why that is. That you have not sought one once of information either through literature or expert opinion as to why an old fashion film camera running at only 18fps like Zapruder's could not possibly catch the kind of details that you claim should be seen there. Pat at least tried to explain the bulge as hair left standing straight up in defiance of gravity because JFK's head went flying backwards.

Here is something else in the AARB inquiry that you may not find of interest, but most everyone else will ....

Mr. Guinn: ................... One other thing that I would like to just advise you on briefly is we identified the person who had developed autopsy photographs from President Kennedy. She's a witness who had not previously been identified before. Her name is Sandra Spencer and she worked at the Naval Photographic Center -- National Photographic Center in Washington. She, in the course of her work, typically did White House photography. She so said that shortly after the assassination she developed photographs. The photographs that she says that she developed did not correspond with those that were in the National Archives. So according to her testimony, there was some photographs that she herself developed that showed a wound in the occipitoparietal area.

Possibly those are the photos that Dennis David said that William Pitzer had shown him. By the way, Sandra Spencer was never called to testify before the Commission or the HSCA.

Bill Miller

Guinn goes on to say: Then to Dr. Jenkins he refers -- this is from packet MD 96. He refers to a great laceration on the right side of the head temporal and occipital. He also says the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.

In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said that -- on Page 48 he thought that this wound in the head was a wound of exit, although he wasn't sure. He said, quote, "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." He then said that, "I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process."

From Page 51 of his Warren Commission testimony he says, "Because the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit, and the appearance of the wound in the neck, and I also thought it was it a wound of exit."

Finally in his testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations he said, There was one segment of bone blown out. It was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum, lower rear brain, was hanging out from the hole in the right rear of the head.

Then Dr. Jones in his testimony to the Warren Commission -- this is Packet MD 98. On Page 53 he says there was a small wound at the midline of the neck and a large wound in the right posterior side of the head, a large -- later, there was a large defect in the back side of the head.

(posterior definition - Situated behind; hinder; -- opposed to anterior.)

And then in-- testimony to the Warren Commission on Page 56 he said that there appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull. And, Mr. Specter referred to that as the top of the President's head.

And finally in handwritten comment -- this is on the last page of the packet that I have given to you. It says there was a small -- that just refers to the -- to the neck wound. I won't read that.

Then Dr. McClelland in his testimony to the Warren Commission said, "I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered apparently by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half. And this sprung open the bones that I had mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out,"

That was from Page 33 if I didn't mention that. Then on Page 34 he also mentions loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissue.

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the purported photos taken of the big hole in the back of the head?

Oh, darn. They aren't in evidence. They are no-see-ums.

But, hey: not to worry—there's "testimony" about them. Oh, yeah: we got that by the bucket. (Please take note of who told you all about these alleged photos—but, you know, just didn't produce them.)

So just believe in them. That's all. It's a faith thang. Doncha' know.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are the purported photos taken of the big hole in the back of the head?

Probably in the same place as the photo of the interior of the thorax that Humes said was taken but that he did not see in the inventoried autopsy materials. It's one of those "no-see-ums." If these missing photos still exist, like Dick Cheney they are in an undisclosed location.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The back of the head photo looks like a ridiculous fake... it's either a matte line or a cut line of where the fake scalp was placed over the wound. How can you repeatedly trot that out as your best evidence in this argument?

After all of that tremendous work you did on the other photographic threads, and the teamwork displayed with John Dolva on the films, I'm left shaking my head over this baffling series.

How easy would it be to insert these BS photos into evidence if you are the Warren Commission? How hard would it be to convince the Parkland doctors that they all saw a massive rear head wound, and have them stick with that viewpoint despite the mounting wave of LHO framidence? (I've coined a new phrase...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
How easy would it be to insert these BS photos into evidence if you are the Warren Commission?

Damn good question—without stipulating to them being "BS photos." How easy would it have been? And they had them.

So the better question is: why didn't they insert the photos into evidence?

Why did they—instead—trot out a lot of testimony exactly contrary to the photos they had?

How hard would it be to convince the Parkland doctors that they all saw a massive rear head wound, and have them stick with that viewpoint despite the mounting wave of LHO framidence? (I've coined a new phrase...)

Despite? I don't know if you've noticed, but the "testimony" of a gaping hole in the back right of the head was on a line pointing back up to the sixth floor of the TSBD.

And "how hard would it be"? I hate jerks who answer real questions with questions, but I don't mind answering rhetorical questions with questions: So how much duress can be brought on the grounds of "national security"? How much fear is in the record from people connected in even minor ways peripheral to the assassination? How many people died mysteriously after the assassination? Why did the Chief Justice of the United States cry?

And is it your position that faking all the medical visual evidence and all of the films would be easier than the CIA buying or coercing false closed testimony given to a federal commission with John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles on it?

And finally, while we're batting around rhetorical questions: if you were going to seed an "investigative" <SPIT!> committee with a lot of false testimony, who would you want to make sure, at all costs, was at the head of the committee to lend apparent 100% validation and credence to such false testimony just by his presence?

(I like "framidence." I'll use it. Probably without credit.) :)

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to post
Share on other sites
Where are the purported photos taken of the big hole in the back of the head?

Oh, darn. They aren't in evidence. They are no-see-ums.

But, hey: not to worry—there's "testimony" about them. Oh, yeah: we got that by the bucket. (Please take note of who told you all about these alleged photos—but, you know, just didn't produce them.)

So just believe in them. That's all. It's a faith thang. Doncha' know.

Ashton Gray

You know - you are right. I mean, who ever heard of our government withholding information from the American people.

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites
Despite? I don't know if you've noticed, but the "testimony" of a gaping hole in the back right of the head was on a line pointing back up to the sixth floor of the TSBD.

What a misstatement of fact! The Commission never even considered where the large hole came from ... all Specter did was quickly dance away from that wound so he could inquire about a small hole below that wound. The reason for this could only be because of the physics involved because as whats been said before - a bullet moving from front to back will avulse the bones rearward, which happens to be what was described by the competent physicians who saw it. The small neat hole that Specter kept probing to find would have meant a shot from the rear. I might also add that a tangental strike to the skull will shed more energy and change its natural path as the bullet passes through the head, so to say the wound lead back to the TSBD is nothing more than you inventing evidence that is not into evidence.

However, I for one do appreciate all the things you have said on this matter, Ashton. It shows just how ignorant one has to be about the evidence to endorse the lone assassin theory. the only other choice is deceitful. In your attempt to do so, you have shown that you are willing to support your position by using what you susppected was flawed 3D views, that all the witnesses (medical, governmental, and civilian alike) all lied as some sort of massive conspiracy to promote evidence against a photo they had never seen before until after the fact, and refuse to educate yourself so to apply the sciences involved pertaining to both the effects of motion blur and back spatter science.

Bill Miller

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of you have already just been waiting to hear the doublespeak that while blown-out bones in evidence on the front of the head had to have come from a frontal shot (why, naturally), any avulsed bones on the back of the head could only mean...well, a frontal shot. How many saw this gibbering dribble-babble whack-warbling coming before it hit you on both sides of the head?

Show of hands?

Is there any mystery any more to the work of the con artists?

Ashton

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many of you have already just been waiting to hear the doublespeak that while blown-out bones in evidence on the front of the head had to have come from a frontal shot (why, naturally), any avulsed bones on the back of the head could only mean...well, a frontal shot. How many saw this gibbering dribble-babble whack-warbling coming before it hit you on both sides of the head?

Ashton

Ashton, to continue to hold your opinon, you must first have evidence to the contrary as to whats been presented. To show this forum that you are not merely some disgruntled xxxxx - please explain why it is that those basic laws of physics are in error? The Dallas doctors had enough sense to understand which way a bullet must be traveling if the bones were sprung opened to the rear, so let us hear your rebuttal to that.

Bill Miller

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
How easy would it be to insert these BS photos into evidence if you are the Warren Commission? How hard would it be to convince the Parkland doctors that they all saw a massive rear head wound, and have them stick with that viewpoint despite the mounting wave of LHO framidence? (I've coined a new phrase...)

But these supposedly faked photos WEREN'T entered into evidence by the Warren Commission. And they were subsequently given to the Kennedy family. So what was the point of faking them? To fool Burkley? To fool Jackie? Well, excuse me, they saw the body and would have been able to spot the fakery. The photos were then returned to the government but kept under the control of a Kennedy attorney, Burke Marshall. This means, if one is to be logical, that the Kennedys either faked the photos or knew about it. But, if they merely knew about it, what guarantees did the fakers have that the Kennedys made no copies of the originals while they were in their custody? Just imagine if Teddy or John John dropped these photos on the public... For these reasons and more I think the photos are legit. I mean, why fake photos indicating a conspiracy if your goal is to convince people there was no conspiracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the photos are legit. I mean, why fake photos indicating a conspiracy if your goal is to convince people there was no conspiracy?

IMO the one obvious fake is the back of the head photo, the purpose of the fakery being to show no conspiracy (i.e. no exit wound in the back of the head, despite statement after statement after statement by credible witnesses).

There are some oddities about other photos, but what seems clear is not necessarily that these other photos involve fakery but that there are photos that are missing (e.g., an interior thorax photo according to Humes, and a photo of the hole in the back of the head, among others, according to Spencer and David). It's much easier to make photos simply disappear than to manipulate what they show, unless you need a fake photo for a specific purpose, to which I've alluded.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites
And is it your position that faking all the medical visual evidence and all of the films would be easier than the CIA buying or coercing false closed testimony given to a federal commission with John J. McCloy and Allen Dulles on it?

Let's see, what would be easier?

Fake two (2) back of the head photos...Or get dozens of people to lie and make sure

each and every one of them maintain that lie for the rest of their lives?

Gee, I dunno, what's easier....uh...

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the photos are legit. I mean, why fake photos indicating a conspiracy if your goal is to convince people there was no conspiracy?

IMO the one obvious fake is the back of the head photo, the purpose of the fakery being to show no conspiracy (i.e. no exit wound in the back of the head, despite statement after statement after statement by credible witnesses).

There are some oddities about other photos, but what seems clear is not necessarily that these other photos involve fakery but that there are photos that are missing (e.g., an interior thorax photo according to Humes, and a photo of the hole in the back of the head, among others, according to Spencer and David). It's much easier to make photos simply disappear than to manipulate what they show, unless you need a fake photo for a specific purpose, to which I've alluded.

Hi Ron,

Sounds as if Ashton needs to get a copy of In the Eye of History. He should read Jim Sibert say how he was a foot away from JFK's head at the autopsy, and described the large gaping hole in the back of the head. He was shown the autopsy pic of the back of the head and said essentially said "that's not what I saw". Most of the Parkland doctors described cerebellum hanging out from the wound. So Ashton should get a copy of Gray's Anatomy and see where the cerebellum is located. But then again EVERYBODY is lying or was coerced(why would anyone be coerced into saying there WAS a large exit wound in the back of the head!?!?!), but I guess it better suits Ashton's own untenable theory. I suppose someone also got to Gawler mortician Thomas Robinson who said they had to sew a rubber patch into the scalp to cover the gaping hole in the rear of the head. I also wonder why the drawings made by Sibert, Robinson, Spencer, and Audrey Bell at the HSCA indicating a large rear head wound was never released until the ARRB did so in the 90's. Ever read the WC testimony of several eyewitnesses to the rear of head wound and read how Specter asked them "was there a smaller wound beneath that large wound?"

There is no question in my mind there was a large gaping wound of exit in the back of the head, and blowing off 30 eyewitnesses just doesn't cut it. Sorry Pat, but if I saw a photo of a big hole in the back of the President's head I'd remember it, or in the case of Sibert, he was standing right there, and said of the wound "it was this big":

Edited by Richard J. Smith
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...