The Parkland Witnesses Vs. The Autopsy Surgeons -- Who Are We To Believe?
David Von Pein
As a firm believer in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, I cannot
deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly
Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a
gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in
'63.
But I'm also curious as to HOW so many people at Parkland Hospital in
Dallas were of this singular opinion when JFK was in a prone (supine)
position, flat on his back, the entire time he was in the emergency
room? It seems to me as though Kennedy would have been literally lying
on the wound that so many people said was in the very back part of his
head. Very strange.
But in order to believe the several "BOH" wound witnesses, we are also
(at the very same time) being forced to DISbelieve and completely
disregard an enormous amount of the official, documented evidence in
the JFK murder case (and at the same time assume that a large number
of
people, within various organizations, told numerous lies with respect
to the facts surrounding Kennedy's death and also faked evidence to
support a Lone-Assassin conclusion).
I ask -- Is that type of conspiratorial belief any MORE logical than
the LNers who disbelieve the witnesses who support a large wound in
the back of JFK's head?
If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head at Parkland and at
Bethesda Medical Center on the night he was autopsied, then we must
totally trash the official autopsy report (signed by all three primary
doctors who performed that post-mortem exam on the President). ....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
In such a conspiracy-favoring scenario, all three of those doctors
MUST be scheming, low-life liars, who didn't hesitate to sign off on
the most important document any of them would ever sign, even though
they had to know the report was nothing but a pack of lies.
If that large hole was at the back of JFK's head, we've also got to
swallow the notion that a large amount of the ballistics evidence in
the case is dead wrong and was deliberately falsified by an unknown
number of people who served the "cover-up" very well.
Or, short of believing that theory, we'd have to believe that a
"magical" thing occurred just after JFK was shot from the front, and
that all of those frontal-shot bullets (however many there might have
been that struck
President Kennedy) just vanished on their own without the aid of any
conspirators' handiwork.
In order to believe in a JFK conspiracy, we'd probably also have to
believe that every member of the Warren Commission panel was up to no
good, with all of these guys rigging the Warren Report to paint Lee
Oswald as a sole assassin (and the lone killer of Dallas city
policeman J.D. Tippit as well).
And in such a "conspiracy mindset", it would also almost assuredly
mean that many, many members of the House Select Committee On
Assassinations in the late 1970s were also no-good, lying SOBs too --
because that
committee came to the same basic conclusion that the Warren boys did
in 1964, when it came down to the question of: "How Many Bullets
Struck
The Victims; And Who Fired Those Shots?" .... With the answers being:
only 2 shots hit any of the victims in the President's limousine; both
of those bullets came from behind the vehicle; and Lee Harvey Oswald
fired those shots from the Texas School Book Depository Building.
Does "In The Eye Of History", or any other pro-conspiracy book, really
trump the hard, physical evidence in the JFK case? Because if it truly
does, then a whole bunch of OTHER STUFF sure worked out in perfect
apple-pie order for these unidentified conspirators who mapped out
that amazing multi-shooter plot to kill the President.
Did the "real assassins" really get THAT LUCKY with respect to all of
the physical evidence (i.e., guns, bullets, shells, and fingerprints),
which ALL adds up to ONLY Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the murders of
Jack Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?
Is it even remotely possible that a group of plotters could have
pre-arranged such a perfect "It Was Only Oswald" plot (save for those
"BOH" wound witnesses), while at the same time utilizing multiple
gunmen hidden throughout Dealey Plaza?
The number of people who needed to be "in" on such a massive
after-the-shooting cover-up operation must have been staggering. ....
Extending from the Dallas Police, to the FBI, to the Secret Service,
to the Dallas doctors who attended both JFK and wounded Texas Governor
John Connally (doctors who must have hidden some of the bullets from
view, surely!), to the scumbags at Bethesda doing the botched autopsy
and then faking the official autopsy report (a report which states,
unequivocally, that Kennedy was shot twice from behind....no mention
of any frontal shots at all striking the President). .....
"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two
perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles
fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from
a
point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Via
Page 6 of
John F. Kennedy's Official "Pathological Examination (Autopsy) Report"
People who wish to believe that President Kennedy received the fatal
blow to his head as a result of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll in
Dealey Plaza should ask themselves a thought-provoking question
regarding the above paragraph I just provided from the 1963 autopsy
report.
That question being ----
Is it reasonable to believe that all three of those autopsy physicians
would have possessed a desire to attach their signatures to an
incredibly-important document like the official autopsy report of the
President of the United States, all the while knowing full well that
the conclusions they reached within that document they had just signed
were complete, outright lies? Is that truly a "logical" thing to
believe with respect to Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell?
What a perfect all-inclusive "Let's Frame Oswald" plot it must have
been (per many conspiracists) -- to have been able to wangle
signatures out of ALL THREE of those autopsy doctors....even though
the doctors
KNOW what they're signing isn't true at all; and they know without
question that that "Report" they've signed-off on would probably be
more at home on a roller in their bathrooms!
And then (as if signing and fully endorsing an obviously-inaccurate
autopsy report isn't bad enough) -- All of these doctors then must
have been forced to follow up their initial falsification of the
autopsy
report by lying about the true nature of JFK's wounds whenever they
spoke of the matter to anyone .... for years and years on end,
including during their sworn testimony in front of the WC, the HSCA,
and the ARRB. An amazing and comprehensive decades-long cover-up that
is still continuing to this day evidently.
And that's precisely one of the biggest reasons to know why such a
large-scale JFK conspiracy never could have possibly happened (or have
been covered-up so beautifully) in the grandiose fashion that many
CTers champion. Because only Houdini could have masterminded such
sleight-of-hand magic and such indomitable powers of unrelenting
influence and domination over so many different people (within various
official and unofficial capacities) in 1963, and for all eternity
thereafter.
Back to reality now.......
The documented evidence that exists surrounding the 1963 murder of
President John F. Kennedy does NOT indicate "conspiracy". Not even
close. Let's have a quick look:
1.) Three bullet shells are discovered in the Book Depository's
"Sniper's Nest" by police (shells that positively came from the rifle
of Lee Harvey Oswald).
2.) A bullet ("Commission Exhibit 399") is found in Parkland Hospital;
and CE399 is a bullet which just happened to also come from the rifle
of Lee H. Oswald.
3.) Two large bullet fragments (also from Oswald's rifle "to the
exclusion") are found inside the very vehicle which was being occupied
by John F. Kennedy when he was killed by rifle fire on the afternoon
of 11/22/63.
4.) Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints are all over the "Sniper's Nest"
area, including his prints on a paper bag THAT HAD NO LEGITIMATE AND
LOGICAL REASON FOR BEING THERE IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL DAY-TO-DAY BOOK
DEPOSITORY OPERATIONS. (A very important point, IMO.)
5.) Eyewitnesses who place Lee Oswald (or someone who looked
remarkably similar to him) in the Sniper's Nest at the exact moment
JFK was being
assassinated via rifle fire (or just seconds prior to the murder).
6.) Oswald's actions after leaving his workplace on 11/22/63; e.g.:
6a.) Oswald leaves work three minutes after the American President is
gunned down right in front of his place of employment (and lies about
why he did so, with his excuse of "I figured there would be no more
work today" being one that won't make the grade, even via "CT"
standards -- because of WHEN he actually left -- 12:33 PM; there is no
way, at that time, he could have KNOWN he could just leave without
getting permission first from one of his bosses, Bill Shelley or Roy
Truly; which is permission he never obtained).
6b.) Oswald rushes into his roominghouse on North Beckley Avenue,
grabs a jacket and a revolver, and quickly leaves.
6c.) Oswald shoots and kills police officer J.D. Tippit with a handgun
at approximately 1:14 PM on Tenth Street.
6d.) Oswald is seen acting and looking "funny" (suspicious) by
shoe-store employee Johnny C. Brewer just minutes after the Tippit
slaying.
6e.) Oswald punches in the face and attempts to kill another of
Dallas' finest within the Texas Theater.
6f.) Oswald's comments made in the theater: "This is it!" and/or "It's
all over now!" ... Now, can some CTer come up with a good and
reasonable "He's Innocent Of Killing Anyone" explanation for Oswald
having said those two phrases -- or even just one of them -- just as
the police approach him in the theater on November 22nd? Good luck
trying, because Oswald's "It's all over now!" has "consciousness of
guilt" stamped all over it.
7.) Oswald's continual lies to the police and to the American people
VIA LIVE TELEVISION after his arrest .... e.g., "I didn't shoot
anyone" and "They've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the
Soviet
Union; I'm just a patsy!", among gobs of other provable falsehoods
spouted by LHO.
8.) And let's not forget this not-so-trivial little item --- Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (proven to have been used to kill JFK without
a shred of a doubt) is found on the Depository's sixth floor at 1:22
PM on November 22nd -- the very same rifle that just happened to turn
up
missing in Ruth Paine's garage that very same day.
And what do conspiracy theorists have in their "Physical Evidence Of A
Conspiracy/Multiple Shooters" basket? (Stuff like "guns", "bullets",
"shell casings", "clothing fibers", and/or "eyewitnesses who
positively identified a specific human being to the exclusion of all
other humans
as being the killer of both JFK and Officer Tippit"? How much of that
kind of stuff is on the CT table to date?)
Answer: None. Not a scrap. And there never has been.
The above batch of "single-assassin evidence" (with all of this
evidence spelling out "Oswald is a murdering and lying
President-killing, cop-killing piece of filth") means little to
hardline CTers, I know. But, in reality, that's of little consequence,
and always has been. Because what theorists WANT to believe regarding
this evidence is meaningless -- because, like it or not, THAT'S the
physical evidence CTers must deal with (and somehow squirm their way
out of in order to paint Oswald as an innocent "Patsy" on 11/22/1963
AD).
And the "Hole-In-The-Back-Of-The-Head" witnesses do not come close to
trumping all of the above evidence. They can't. No matter how many
there are. Because there's too much OTHER STUFF on the "LN/LHO" table
that is telling us that those witnesses cannot possibly be correct
regarding the precise location of President Kennedy's head wound; and
too many OTHER PEOPLE who would all have to be included in the
category of "co-conspirators" in order for the back of JFK's head to
be missing
-- way too many to believe such a plot could have possibly been
successful.
But, thankfully, there are people like Dale Myers, Larry Sturdivan,
and Vincent Bugliosi around who DO still put some value on the
physical
evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, instead of merely
screaming "It MUST all have been faked (somehow)", which is nonsense
of the first order, of course, when considering the totality and
perfect
"LN/LHO Cohesiveness" of such a huge basket of would-be "faked"
evidence (in both the Kennedy and Tippit cases).
Ignoring (or deeming as "all phony") the above batch of "One Assassin
Named Oswald" evidence is about as silly an exercise as believing that
some dumbbell plotters tried to frame a lone "patsy" by shooting up
Dealey Plaza from every conceivable angle. THAT goofball plan should
have everybody laughing out loud (even the CTers). But, remarkably,
many conspiracy theorists have latched on to that "Patsy" theory and
won't let go of it, despite its obvious implausibilities.
David R. Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e72510faf63242db
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>
>As a firm believer in Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the
>assassination of President John F. Kennedy in November 1963, I cannot
>deny that I'm puzzled and concerned by the number of witnesses (mostly
>Parkland Hospital witnesses) who have gone on record to say they saw a
>gaping hole in the back of President Kennedy's head that day back in
>'63.
>
>But I'm also curious as to HOW so many people at Parkland Hospital in
>Dallas were of this singular opinion when JFK was in a prone (supine)
>position, flat on his back, the entire time he was in the emergency
>room? It seems to me as though Kennedy would have been literally lying
>on the wound that so many people said was in the very back part of his
>head. Very strange.
Not strange at all. None of Parkland said they saw a wound right
square in the middle of JFK's head ... the part of the head that would
not be visible when laying supine. They put what they saw in the
***right*** rear of JFK's head, and that is an area that is largely
visible when a person is laying on their back .... it is also the area
where the temporal, parietal and occipital bones meet up behind the
ear ... the three areas where the autopsist's noted damage .... and it
is also the area encompassed by the 10cm measurement (right of the
eop) measured and diagrammed by the autopsists at the autopsy.
Parkland and the autopsists agreed on damage to the right rear
quadrant of JFK's head.
>
>But in order to believe the several "BOH" wound witnesses, we are also
>(at the very same time) being forced to DISbelieve and completely
>disregard an enormous amount of the official, documented evidence in
>the JFK murder case (and at the same time assume that a large number
>of
>people, within various organizations, told numerous lies with respect
>to the facts surrounding Kennedy's death and also faked evidence to
>support a Lone-Assassin conclusion).
Why?
>
>I ask -- Is that type of conspiratorial belief any MORE logical than
>the LNers who disbelieve the witnesses who support a large wound in
>the back of JFK's head?
>
>If JFK had a massive hole in the back of his head at Parkland and at
>Bethesda Medical Center on the night he was autopsied, then we must
>totally trash the official autopsy report (signed by all three primary
>doctors who performed that post-mortem exam on the President). ....
There are many probs with the autopsy report ... more for what it
fails to note than for what it does .... but it does note damage is
chiefly parietal but also temporal and occipital. Again, those bones
meet up in the right rear quadrant behind the ear.
Go to: http://www.csuchico.edu/tlp/info/projects/skull/
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
>
>In such a conspiracy-favoring scenario, all three of those doctors
>MUST be scheming, low-life liars, who didn't hesitate to sign off on
>the most important document any of them would ever sign, even though
>they had to know the report was nothing but a pack of lies.
No.
>
>If that large hole was at the back of JFK's head, we've also got to
>swallow the notion that a large amount of the ballistics evidence in
>the case is dead wrong and was deliberately falsified by an unknown
>number of people who served the "cover-up" very well.
No! You are assuming that a wound in the rear of the head means a shot
from the front. It does NOT.
>
>Or, short of believing that theory, we'd have to believe that a
>"magical" thing occurred just after JFK was shot from the front, and
>that all of those frontal-shot bullets (however many there might have
>been that struck
See ... I knew you were. :-)
>President Kennedy) just vanished on their own without the aid of any
>conspirators' handiwork.
>
>In order to believe in a JFK conspiracy, we'd probably also have to
>believe that every member of the Warren Commission panel was up to no
>good, with all of these guys rigging the Warren Report to paint Lee
>Oswald as a sole assassin (and the lone killer of Dallas city
>policeman J.D. Tippit as well).
Silly. What you need to NOT believe is that a shot from the front is
necessary for there to be damage to the back of the head. It is
untrue, incorrect. And most CTs I know of firmly believe/acknowledge
that JFK was shot in the back of the head ... near the EOP, just where
the autopsists said they found the entry.
To believe they misplaced that entry by some 4 inches is as
preposterous as any of the other preposterous things you
proffer....and the sole reason LNs cling desperately to that
preposterous error is because they have this incorrect and misguided
notion that damage to the rear = shot from the front. It does not.
The right side of JFK's head virtually exploded ..... from the far
right rear all the way to the front. Note the damage to the brain, the
parasagittal longitudinal slice from the TIP OF THE OCCIPITAL LOBE to
the tip of the frontal lobe; note their descriptions, drawings,
measurements. And remember, that Bethesda is the ONLY place where the
ENTIRE damage was viewable .... once the scalp was reflected.
I scanned the rest of your post below .... my oh my ... you do go on
so ... quite a tangled mess you weave ... and, as far as I can see,
all based on your own false premise that damage to the rear of the
head has to mean a shot came from the front. Get back on earth and
read up on ballistics ... cavitation, pressure ...etc.
Riddle me this .,.... why do you believe that a wound to the rear of
the head means a shot had to come from the front? ANd, you are aware,
right, that virtually the entire right side of JFK's skull was
destroyed?
Barb :-)
John Canal
Pein says...
<TOP POST>
David,
I'm not going to debate you again on this issue....perhaps, Barb, P.
Seaton or someone else will....but I doubt it as you obviously have your
mind made up. But, you should get another 5-star award for this
post....congradulations.
I do, however, want to make a few additional comments.
First, as P. Seaton pointed out to Cage, at some points between DP and the
end of the autopsy, the front right flap (seen best in the BOH photos)
hangs open, creating a gaping hole.....but at other points (stare of death
photo, for one), that flap is shut and there is no hole.
But no big deal, right, David? Could it be that no LNs are concerned about
that front/right flap because it didn't cause the "shot-from-the-front"
alarms to go off?
BTW, FWIW, as does P. Seaton, I don't think for one usec that a shot from
the front caused the BOH wound.
You talk about the Parkland witnesses and suggest that they made a
mistake...presumeably because, for most of the time at Parkland, the back
of JFK's head wasn't facing those witnesses. I said, "most of the time",
BTW, because, one of those BOH witnesses, a neurosurgeon, stated he and a
collegue lifted the back of his head to see the wound. In any case, the
point I want to make is that most of them didn't say, "I ***THINK** I saw
a wound here [BOH]", they said they ***SAW*** one....so when anyone says
they didn't see any BOH wound, in effect, they're not just saying those
witnesses were "mistaken"....they're saying those witnesses were lying.
David, that's the leap I didn't want to take and caused me to look deeply
into the record for alternative explanations.....which you know already.
Secondly, when one suggests the Parkland witnesses were wrong about seeing
a BOH wound, that's misleading...because there were others who saw such a
wound, (Clint Hill, Ebersole, and Chester Boyers, to name a few).
And, no matter how mch you try to interpret what Boswell said so it's
consistent with a no-BOH-wound scenario, he ***DID*** testify under oath
that he replaced rear bone pieces (one being a 10 cm pice) before the
x-rays...meaning shortly after the body arrived. He was not a scheming
participant in any conspiracy...he just thought it was the right thing to
do. If you say he didn't replace pieces of rear bone, should we throw him
in on top of that huge pile of liars too? Where does it stop,
David....with the lying?
I shall leave you with this thought: out of the 20+ BOH witnesses, for
your theory to be correct, not one, I repeat, not one, of them could have
been right about what they saw.
Take care,
John C.
John Blubaugh
>
> read more »
Did the Parkland witnesses work for the US Government? Enough said.
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
>> read more =BB
>
>Did the Parkland witnesses work for the US Government? Enough said.
>
>
Actually, no they didn't.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Blubaugh
> On 14 Jul 2007 21:31:41 -0400, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com>
That is why I think they were more reliable than the government
employees who did the inept autopsy.
JB
bigdog
>
> read more »
My belief is that the skull flap is the key to the apparent contradictions
between the Parkland and Bethesda teams. From the Zapruder film we see the
entire right side of JFK's head blown open, and the skull flap hanging
down the side of his head. Another piece of skull was completely blown
away. With the skull flap closed on the front portion of the blow out
area, it would leave only the hole near the rear of the wound. I believe
Jackie probably closed that flap as the limo raced to Parkland. When the
Parkland team saw the wound, they saw only the large hole in the rear
half. I believe they also described a laceration which I believe was
actually the seam between the flap and intact portion of his skull. Since
the Parkland team never actually treated the head wound, they probably
never realized the true extent of the blow out. That's my best educated
guess for the apparent discrepancies in the description of the head wound.
Barb Junkkarinen
Jackie closing the flap on the way to Parkland does indeed explain why
Parkland never saw that portion of the wound .... no one saw the full
extent of the wound until the scalp was reflected at Bethesda. But
when it comes to the rearmost portion of the wound ... Bethesda
corroborated Parkland .... large amount of defect in the right rear
quadrant of skull .... extending some 10cm lateral right from 1" right
of the eop. Parkland couldn't see all the way to the eop ... they did
see a large portion of that 10cm wide defect on the right rear of the
head though.
Barb :-)
David Von Pein
By strict definition, you're correct....a large "BOH" would not
necessarily HAVE to equal a shot from the front.
But in THIS (JFK) CASE specifically, we can be pretty sure there was
no large-sized BOH wound...because if there were such a wound on the
President's body, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY THE THREE AUTOPSY
SURGEONS.
IOW -- There was absolutely no good enough reason for those autopsists
to want to HIDE any of JFK's wounds.
Why?
Because even if there had been a large BOH hole in JFK's head, and
even if the doctors were worried about WW3 (or whatever other imagined
catastrophe that might befall the country in the wake of the
assassination of the President), the doctors would still have had the
IRONCLAD PROOF, via the two irrevocable small bullet wounds of ENTRY
in JFK's upper back and in the back of his head, that Kennedy was hit
by bullets that came only from BEHIND him (from the direction of Lee
Harvey Oswald's gun).*
* = This, of course, also assumes that the doctors would have had all
of this detailed knowledge about the trajectories and about what LHO
could or could not have accomplished with his one rifle from his TSBD
POV at 12:30, which is very unlikely of course...esp. since we KNOW
that none of those autopsy physicians was even aware of the widely-
seen press conference given by Clark and Perry at 3:16 PM in Dallas,
since not a person in that autopsy room had any idea that there was a
bullet hole in JFK's throat.
It's absolutely incredible, IMO, that not a single person at Bethesda
knew of this widely-known "throat wound" fact as of 8:00 PM. Why on
Earth didn't somebody tell somebody at Bethesda?
And, more incredible still, is the fact that Perry never bothered to
tell ANYONE in the Kennedy party, or the SS or the DPD, that he
totally obliterated a bullet hole that he had to know would never be
seen at the autopsy that night due to the trach incision....which is
an autopsy that Perry HAD to know was going to be taking place after
the President left Perry's care.
Dr. Malcolm Perry, IMO, was very foolish for not saying to SOMEBODY in
authority: "Hey, by the way, I made a trach cut right through what
looked to me like a bullet hole".
>>> "And, you are aware, right, that virtually the entire right side of JFK's skull was destroyed?" <<<
Doesn't really look that way to me. There's a good deal of "right
side" damage, yes. But it doesn't look like "virtually the entire
right side of JFK's skull was destroyed" to me. At least not from this
photo.....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
However, I know that the autopsy doctors did, indeed, say that there
was a good deal of skull missing in the right hemisphere of the head.
The whole "BOH" argument is pretty much a moot one anyway (i.e., an
argument that pretty much "goes nowhere")....because there's
undeniable proof that JFK was shot in the head just ONE time....with
that bullet positively coming from behind and entering the back of
President Kennedy's head, producing the characteristic "bevelling in"
effect, which proves beyond all doubt that that wound was a wound of
entrance....just as Dr. James Humes told the CBS-TV viewing audience
in June of 1967 (in his first interview since his WC testimony). Here
are Humes' exact words from that 1967 CBS-TV "Warren Report"
documentary:
========================
DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
sir."
RATHER -- "And that was where?"
DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
front and right side of the President's head."
RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
President's head was the entry wound?"
DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
========================
I'll now turn things over to Vincent T. Bugliosi to complete this
post......
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit
wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide
better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and
beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and
frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the
RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO
SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." -- Vince Bugliosi;
Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"
David Von Pein
I, too, think that's quite possible.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3061edc2867982ce
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2e1d9ff409489d9b
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Why do you believe that a wound to the rear of the head means a shot had to come from the front?" <<<
>
> By strict definition, you're correct....a large "BOH" would not
> necessarily HAVE to equal a shot from the front.
>
> But in THIS (JFK) CASE specifically, we can be pretty sure there was
> no large-sized BOH wound...because if there were such a wound on the
> President's body, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY THE THREE AUTOPSY
> SURGEONS.
>
No. They did not report the throat wound. They were incompetent.
> IOW -- There was absolutely no good enough reason for those autopsists
> to want to HIDE any of JFK's wounds.
>
Of course there was. National Security. They would kill their own
children if ordered to do so.
> Why?
>
> Because even if there had been a large BOH hole in JFK's head, and
> even if the doctors were worried about WW3 (or whatever other imagined
> catastrophe that might befall the country in the wake of the
> assassination of the President), the doctors would still have had the
> IRONCLAD PROOF, via the two irrevocable small bullet wounds of ENTRY
> in JFK's upper back and in the back of his head, that Kennedy was hit
> by bullets that came only from BEHIND him (from the direction of Lee
> Harvey Oswald's gun).*
>
There was no small wound in the back of the head. Show me this wound
exactly where the autopsy doctors said it was using the back of the head
photo. Now you know why the autopsy photos were suppressed for so many
years.
> * = This, of course, also assumes that the doctors would have had all
> of this detailed knowledge about the trajectories and about what LHO
> could or could not have accomplished with his one rifle from his TSBD
> POV at 12:30, which is very unlikely of course...esp. since we KNOW
> that none of those autopsy physicians was even aware of the widely-
> seen press conference given by Clark and Perry at 3:16 PM in Dallas,
> since not a person in that autopsy room had any idea that there was a
> bullet hole in JFK's throat.
>
> It's absolutely incredible, IMO, that not a single person at Bethesda
> knew of this widely-known "throat wound" fact as of 8:00 PM. Why on
> Earth didn't somebody tell somebody at Bethesda?
>
National Security.
> And, more incredible still, is the fact that Perry never bothered to
> tell ANYONE in the Kennedy party, or the SS or the DPD, that he
> totally obliterated a bullet hole that he had to know would never be
> seen at the autopsy that night due to the trach incision....which is
> an autopsy that Perry HAD to know was going to be taking place after
> the President left Perry's care.
>
The SS and FBI were right there in the operating room and could see
Perry make the trache on the throat wound. Various officials heard them
describe it as an entrance wound.
> Dr. Malcolm Perry, IMO, was very foolish for not saying to SOMEBODY in
> authority: "Hey, by the way, I made a trach cut right through what
> looked to me like a bullet hole".
>
"Hey, by the way, the shots came from the front."
>
>>>> "And, you are aware, right, that virtually the entire right side of JFK's skull was destroyed?" <<<
>
> Doesn't really look that way to me. There's a good deal of "right
> side" damage, yes. But it doesn't look like "virtually the entire
> right side of JFK's skull was destroyed" to me. At least not from this
> photo.....
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
>
> However, I know that the autopsy doctors did, indeed, say that there
> was a good deal of skull missing in the right hemisphere of the head.
>
> The whole "BOH" argument is pretty much a moot one anyway (i.e., an
> argument that pretty much "goes nowhere")....because there's
> undeniable proof that JFK was shot in the head just ONE time....with
> that bullet positively coming from behind and entering the back of
> President Kennedy's head, producing the characteristic "bevelling in"
> effect, which proves beyond all doubt that that wound was a wound of
Nonsense.
So, do you still believe that is where the entrance wound is? Show it to
me on the back of the head photo.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "Why do you believe that a wound to the rear of the head means a shot had to come from the front?" <<<
>
>By strict definition, you're correct....a large "BOH" would not
>necessarily HAVE to equal a shot from the front.
Welcome to reality. :-)
>
>But in THIS (JFK) CASE specifically, we can be pretty sure there was
>no large-sized BOH wound...because if there were such a wound on the
>President's body, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY THE THREE AUTOPSY
>SURGEONS.
It was. It is detailed on the autopsy working papers, damage to that
area is noted in the autopsy report.
>
>IOW -- There was absolutely no good enough reason for those autopsists
>to want to HIDE any of JFK's wounds.
They didn't hide it in their working papers ... they measured it and
drew it. They mentioned the areas of damage in the autopsy report.
>
>Why?
>
>Because even if there had been a large BOH hole in JFK's head, and
>even if the doctors were worried about WW3 (or whatever other imagined
>catastrophe that might befall the country in the wake of the
>assassination of the President), the doctors would still have had the
>IRONCLAD PROOF, via the two irrevocable small bullet wounds of ENTRY
>in JFK's upper back and in the back of his head, that Kennedy was hit
>by bullets that came only from BEHIND him (from the direction of Lee
>Harvey Oswald's gun).*
They reported two wound from behind....and they knew there was a large
defect that included defect behind the ear between 1" right of the eop
and lateral right for 10cm.
It's LNs that have a problem with that. Bethesda corroborated Parkland
and Hill. Why that is so difficult for most LNs to accept (save for 2
I know of) is beyond me.
>
>* = This, of course, also assumes that the doctors would have had all
>of this detailed knowledge about the trajectories and about what LHO
>could or could not have accomplished with his one rifle from his TSBD
>POV at 12:30, which is very unlikely of course...esp. since we KNOW
>that none of those autopsy physicians was even aware of the widely-
>seen press conference given by Clark and Perry at 3:16 PM in Dallas,
>since not a person in that autopsy room had any idea that there was a
>bullet hole in JFK's throat.
The press conference in Dallas was at 2:16 CST ... 3:16 in DC ... what
all the autopsists were aware of or not aware of is a question ....
technically, they should have spoken to the Parkland contingent before
the autopsy began, and they had time, but that seems to not have
happened. It's all irrelevant to what you say anyway as the wounds
were where the wounds were ... regardless of where anyone at the time
might report they came from and by whom. The autopsy report is a bit
irregular in that it does report on the circumstances and number of
shots in its introduction.
Autopsy determines the cause and manner of death ... and the details
thereof ... number of wounds, direction, location, etc ... that's what
autopies are for. Everything else has to come from those facts the
body presents.
>
>It's absolutely incredible, IMO, that not a single person at Bethesda
>knew of this widely-known "throat wound" fact as of 8:00 PM. Why on
>Earth didn't somebody tell somebody at Bethesda?
On this we are in agreement ... it's preposterous that they didn't
know. At least they say they didn't know. Everybody else in the world
knew. They should have had that pre-autopsy contact ... and Burkley,
JFK's physician was at both locations and he definitely knew.
>
>And, more incredible still, is the fact that Perry never bothered to
>tell ANYONE in the Kennedy party, or the SS or the DPD, that he
>totally obliterated a bullet hole that he had to know would never be
>seen at the autopsy that night due to the trach incision....which is
>an autopsy that Perry HAD to know was going to be taking place after
>the President left Perry's care.
Yup ... though there were some references to copies of the treatment
notes from Parkland being hand carried with Burkley from Parkland to
Bethesda .... early vague reference (from Price at Parkland if I
recall correctly) ... never mentioned again and officially we are told
they didn't know. I find it hard to believe as well.
>
>Dr. Malcolm Perry, IMO, was very foolish for not saying to SOMEBODY in
>authority: "Hey, by the way, I made a trach cut right through what
>looked to me like a bullet hole".
Perry announced to the world that he made an incision thru a wound in
that press conference. Don't leave him holding this bag ... the job
shifted to the autopsists. If one believes Dr. Robert Livingston of
the National Institutes of Health, he personally called Humes and told
him about the trach through a bullet hole in the throat that
afternoon, long before the body arrived at Bethesda. It's all part of
the morass that is the medical evidence. Evidence that should not be a
morass at all.
>
>
>>>> "And, you are aware, right, that virtually the entire right side of JFK's skull was destroyed?" <<<
>
>Doesn't really look that way to me. There's a good deal of "right
>side" damage, yes. But it doesn't look like "virtually the entire
>right side of JFK's skull was destroyed" to me. At least not from this
>photo.....
>
>http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
Silly. That's a photo of hair and goo .... not skull. I've begun to
wonder just how familiar you are with the medical evidence ... and the
autopsy, and their comments about the extent of damage, all the bone
that was displaced, stuck to the scalp or fell to the table when they
reflected the scalp. They measured the resulting defect (and drew it)
to be 17c, aft to fore and 10cm lateral right from the eop. That's a
BIG defect ... encompassing most of the right side of the skull. A pic
taken of JFK before the autopsy began couldn't be expected to show the
overall extent of the damage ... and it's silly to even see it
proffered as such. Bemeath that hair and goo, his skull was shattered,
falling apart ... and that
s from the facts of record. You might try actually reading these
documents.
>
>However, I know that the autopsy doctors did, indeed, say that there
>was a good deal of skull missing in the right hemisphere of the head.
No kidding.
>
>The whole "BOH" argument is pretty much a moot one anyway (i.e., an
>argument that pretty much "goes nowhere")....because there's
>undeniable proof that JFK was shot in the head just ONE time....with
>that bullet positively coming from behind and entering the back of
>President Kennedy's head, producing the characteristic "bevelling in"
>effect, which proves beyond all doubt that that wound was a wound of
>entrance....just as Dr. James Humes told the CBS-TV viewing audience
>in June of 1967 (in his first interview since his WC testimony). Here
>are Humes' exact words from that 1967 CBS-TV "Warren Report"
>documentary:
There you are with that erroneous supposition that there couldn't be
damage to the back of the head because the bullet came from the rear.
Ridiculous.
I don't know many who argue with that.
Humes also said in his WC testimony:
HUMES: Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired
from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind.
As per too often in the WC, that rather interesting comment was
followed up with a ridiculous question that left that interesting
comment hanging ... instead of persuing what Humes meant by that,
McCloy asked....
McCloy: This is so obvious that I rather hesitate to ask it. There is
no question in your mind that it was a lethal bullet?
McCloy should have done more than hesitate. Sigh.
>
>========================
>
>I'll now turn things over to Vincent T. Bugliosi to complete this
>post......
>
>"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit
>wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide
>better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and
>beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was. Zapruder frame 313 and
>frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the
>RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO
>SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." -- Vince Bugliosi;
>Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"
Bugliosi is the new king of the "exit" problem. He uses "exit" nearly
every time he refers to any wound in the rear of the head ... about
how it couldn't be, because he makes the same erroneous supposition as
you and others .... that being that ant any damage to the back of the
head would have to be exit therefore a shot would have to have come
from the front, therefore there was no damage to the back of the head
because we know the bullet came from the rear.
Ridiculous. Regardless of where any bullets came from, the extent of
the damage to JFK's skull was what it was ... and it was extensive,
encompassing most of the right side of JFK's skull ... including a
great deal of nasty damage in the right rear of JFK's head as reported
by Hill in DP, by Parkland (included in notes for the medical record
made by the treating physicians that afternoon and that includes the
neurosurgeon who did a brief exam of the wound and then pronounced JFK
dead) and reported, drawn and measured at autopsy.
Only those who educate themselves beyond the "exit" fallacy, as John
Canal and Paul Seaton (both strong LNs have done) and dare to really
get to know and understand the volume of evidence about damage to the
rear of the head, appreciate the extent of the damage and the probs
with much of the medical evidence. Airy dismissals of "it couldn't
have been because the shot hit from the rear" are old and trite and
about as useful and meaningful to furthering anything in this arena as
debate about whether or not the earth is really round and not flat.
Happy Sunday,
Barb :-)
>
Gerry Simone (H)
to ensure no significant wounds?
Didn't external cardiac massage or giving blood result in profuse bleeding
from the head to indicate exit wounds?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184397009.5...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Peter Fokes
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Didn't Dr. Carrico or others say they made a quick check of JFK's posterior
>to ensure no significant wounds?
Dr. Grossmann has said he checked the back of the President's head:
Dr. Robert Grossmann told Ben Bradlee Jr. of the Boston Globe [in 1980
if I recall correctly] that Kennedy had a large wound separate from
his temple wound in the back of his head--much too large to be an
entrance wound.
On the Larry King Show in 2003, he said:
Larry King:
You examined the head wound?
Dr. Grossmann:
Yes, when Dr. Clark came in he was surrounded by physicians ... trying
to resuscitate him, and you could see that the right side of his head
had suffered a major wound. But I don't think anyone had had the time
to examine him closely. So Dr. Kemp and I went to the head of the
stretcher ... and we lifted up his head. He had very thick bristly
hair, and when you parted the hair you could see that the right
posterior part of the head (puts his hand above the ear and toward the
back fingers on top of head) ... was simply blasted out. There was a
large plate of bone that was hinged upwards and you could see the
brain tissue was all macerated and white. As Dr. Jones said there was
no active bleeding. Then we lifted his head up further and he had a
small opening in the back of his head. (Shows skull model) We lifted
his head up like this and you could see in the back here there was an
opening the size of a quarter which was clearly a bullet entry wound,
and then there was this massive gaping wound on the side of his head
with the plate of bone blown up.
I thought I saw some gasping, but it was perfectly clear he could
not live very long. I thought he might remain in a coma for some hours
or even some days with brain stem intact. It was clear to me that the
bullet had entered the back of his head and blasted out this part
(right side of head above ear). This was an exit wound.
<quote off>
At first glance Dr. Grossmann's statement's appear contradictory. But
on closer reading, it seems clear he is saying "the right posterior
part of the head" was not part of an "entry" wound. That wound was an
extension of the exit wound on the right side of his head.
He describes the "other" wound ... "an opening the size of a quarter"
as a bullet entry wound.
I realize both Barb and John Canal view Dr. Grossmann's recollections
with a great deal of skepticism.
PF
John Canal
>on closer reading, it seems clear he is saying "the right posterior
>part of the head" was not part of an "entry" wound. That wound was an
>extension of the exit wound on the right side of his head.
>
>He describes the "other" wound ... "an opening the size of a quarter"
>as a bullet entry wound.
>
>I realize both Barb and John Canal view Dr. Grossmann's recollections
>with a great deal of skepticism.
Peter,
Perhaps we do, but maybe that's because he told the Boston Globe in 1981 that
the hole in the occiput was "far too large to be an entry".
John Canal
Peter Fokes
wrote:
John,
I mentioned that article and quoted from it in my earlier post. I
believe I said "1980 if I recall correctly", but it was the Boston
Globe article of 1981.
In fact, Dr. Grossmann refers to that occiput wound as an extension of
the right side of the head wound. Dr. Grossmann describes the "entry"
wound as the smaller wound about the size of a quarter.
So you are correct. The large blasted out portion that included part
of the posterior of the head was not an entry wound. The smaller wound
in the back of the head was an entry wound in his opinion.
The entire text of my original reply is below:
<quote off>
At first glance Dr. Grossmann's statement's appear contradictory. But
on closer reading, it seems clear he is saying "the right posterior
part of the head" was not part of an "entry" wound. That wound was an
extension of the exit wound on the right side of his head.
He describes the "other" wound ... "an opening the size of a quarter"
as a bullet entry wound.
I realize both Barb and John Canal view Dr. Grossmann's recollections
with a great deal of skepticism.
PF
>
>John Canal
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Didn't Dr. Carrico or others say they made a quick check of JFK's posterior
>to ensure no significant wounds?
Jenkins, I think it was, said he ran his hands underneath feeling
around ... didn't feel anything. Don't recall about Carrico off the
top of my head.
>
>Didn't external cardiac massage or giving blood result in profuse bleeding
>from the head to indicate exit wounds?
Profuse bleeding would indicate major wound; not necessarily "exit" in
nature ... though, arguably, most of the right half of JFK's head was
exit wound. People seem to confuse exit in the sense of anywhere the
skull had opened up was essentially an exit with exit as in spots
where they were able to identify where pieces of bullet had struck
skull on its way out. Two separate issues, really.
Fire a round into a sealed can of liquid resulting in the can bursting
apart at both ends and the seam. Essentially all those areas are exit
... where pressure exploded the can apart, fluid inside escaped; but
under examination, it is likely that a whole made by the actual bullet
would be found ... that would be, technically, "the exit."
Because Parkland saw two wounds ... a small wound in the throat and a
large wound at the right rear of the head, it is logical that they
would suppose they had an entry in the throat and an exit in the rear
of the head .... they weren't pronouncing it such, just saying the way
it looked to them given the wounds they could see ... they had no way
of knowing direction of bullets for sure, let alone number of bullet
wounds at that time.... they did know the location and general
size/severity of the wounded areas they could see.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On 15 Jul 2007 13:48:46 -0400, "Gerry Simone \(H\)"
><newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Didn't Dr. Carrico or others say they made a quick check of JFK's posterior
>>to ensure no significant wounds?
>
>Dr. Grossmann has said he checked the back of the President's head:
Take great care with Grossman and his latter day hands on details. :-)
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>At first glance Dr. Grossmann's statement's appear contradictory. But
I don't have a prob with his recollection that the head was turned and
a flashlight used; beyond that ... yeah, I'm a major skeptic ...
especially when it comes to him being hands on and cradling JFK on the
gurney. Gimme a break.
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>> "Why do you believe that a wound to the rear of the head means a shot had to come from the front?" <<<
>>
>> By strict definition, you're correct....a large "BOH" would not
>> necessarily HAVE to equal a shot from the front.
>>
>> But in THIS (JFK) CASE specifically, we can be pretty sure there was
>> no large-sized BOH wound...because if there were such a wound on the
>> President's body, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REPORTED BY THE THREE AUTOPSY
>> SURGEONS.
>>
>
>No. They did not report the throat wound. They were incompetent.
Huh?
1. He's talking about the BOH, not the throat.
2. They did report the throat wound in the autopsy report ... and,
unfortunately, they finessed it so it looks like they actually knew
about the wound and tracked it at autopsy. As we all know, they did
not.
Barb :-)
John Canal
Pein says...
David,
Sorry for butting in...I know you intended this for Barb, but I just can't
resist discussing this subject with someone as sensible as you....I really
get tired of the "Canal don't you realize the 6.5 mm opacity, LBOH wound,
and near-EOP entry is RIP" BS....from the same guy who thinks the 6.5 mm
opacity was actually a marker that they intentionally put there...but,
evidently forgot about and then called it a bullet fragment....you know,
like McAdams still thinks it's a bullet fragment.
********************************
>>>>"Why do you believe that a wound to the rear of the head means a shot had to
>>>>come from the front?" <<<
>
>By strict definition, you're correct....a large "BOH" would not
>necessarily HAVE to equal a shot from the front.
>
>But in THIS (JFK) CASE specifically, we can be pretty sure there was
>no large-sized BOH wound...
**********************************
Well, I wonder if being only "pretty sure" is justification for saying
that 20+ Parkland witnesses, not to mention C. Hill, Ebersole, and C.
Boyers, are **ALL** wrong about what they said they say.
David, the ev. is overwhelming that at the very least the skull under the
rear scalp was extensively fragmented...the best ev. being F8. Look at the
skull edge near and to the right of the entry. It's ragged, right...just
as Boswell wrote on his face sheet, "ragged and slanting". IOW, it
obviously wasn't cut with a saw (and they said just that)...or else they
must have used a logger's saw to do it. IOW, when they reflected the rear
scalp, the bone pieces fell out because they were already loose behind the
scalp. Furthermore, Boswell drew those pieces at the rear of the head on
his face sheet...one being a 10 cm pieces.
Ok, now tell me it's a great leap to go from an extensively fragmented
rear skull in DP to an opening back there...all that would be needed would
be for there to be a tear in the right rear scalp...and there's your right
rear BOH wound! Furthermore, if the skull was in pieces, don't you think
it's a good possibility that the scalp adhered to it might have been
torn...from the same force?
Now, are you absolutely positive Humes and Boswell would have reported
seeing a right rear BOH wound? Maybe it wasn't up to them? But if you
think they reported everything absolutely 100% as they saw it or exactly
as the events that weekend unfolded, IMO, that'd be living in an ideal
world...and Bethesda was not in that world that weekend.
Consider: (1) the notes burning debacle, (2) the dot at about T3 on
Boswell's face sheet (that he later, in effect, admitted was purposely
drawn too low), (3) their claiming to have probably recovered the 6.5 mm
thing during the autopsy and later saying they didn't recall even seeing
it that night (which is consistent with the autopsy report), (4) their
illustrating JFK leaning about 50 deg. forward in CE-388 (his actual lean
was about 26 deg.) in order to make an incorrect straight-through the head
trajectory be consistent with a shot from the SN, (5) Boswell's replacing
rear pieces of bone before the x-rays...and never saying one word about
doing so until the ARRB, (6) their not taking any pics of the BOH (but
only other views) of JFK when the body was first received, (7) their not
taking a pic of the skull from the rear after the scalp was reflected, (8)
their "cautiously" reporting that the great defect extended only
"somewhat" into the occipital when they said later it extended all the way
down to the EOP (as confirmed by F8), etc., etc.
I'm not saying they were in on any conspiracy, David, but, IMO, they
certainly "towed the line", if they didn't spin the report safely away
from any conspiracy conclusions...even though they knew there were only
two bullets that hit JFK and that they were fired from the rear. They just
couldn't take a chance that their reporting the wounds precisely as they
were wouldn't be misinterpreted...the stakes were too high....IMHO.
Bottom line for me, david, is that I hate calling people liars...and, if,
for this point, we can single out just Ebersole, who said he held the
President's head in his hands and saw a right-rear gaping wound, if one
said there wasn't such a wound, then that's calling him a bold-faced liar!
Why on God's green earth would he lie...there's absolutely no reason for
it.
IMO, Boswell and Humes, never lied...they just didn't report everything,
i.e. pretty much, "ommisions"...not qute the same, especially if there are
paranoid superiors around.
John Canal
****************
Herbert Blenner
On Jul 15, 3:31 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2007 13:48:46 -0400, "Gerry Simone \(H\)"
>
The doctors who saw the throat wound before surgery had a way of knowing
the direction of the associated bullet. In particular the almost round to
slightly oval hole revealed that the direction of the bullet was almost or
slightly removed from the perpendicular to the surface of the wound. So
with this knowledge of the trajectory they had no grounds to assume that a
bullet entered the throat, deflected during transit and exited the right
rear of the head.
Herbert
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Sorry, Herbert, I don't think that makes sense .... besides which,
they noted the small wound, did not study it ... and made the trach
incision. Given a small wound and a large wound, the logical
supposition given no other knowledge about more bullets or more wounds
would have been in small, out big. That's the only reason for what
they opined. It just turned out to be incorrect given what was found
at autopsy, though there is that Rankin thing about more things from
the autopsy needing to be worked out in executive session Jan 27, 1964
... a time when all supposition should/would have been over as the
autopsy report was supposedly final.
Barb :-)
David Von Pein
That F8 photo has always been a mystery to my eyes. I can't make out a
damn thing. I'm always totally confused when I gaze upon it. (It's no
wonder Baden testified with the damn thing upside-down. I probably
would have too.)
>>> "Now, are you absolutely positive Humes and Boswell would have reported seeing a right rear BOH wound?" <<<
No, I'm not positive. No one can be positive of that, of course. But I
think it's very likely they would have reported everything...including
any larger-sized BOH wound, if it was present at the autopsy.
Barb evidently thinks the BOH wound WAS reported by HB&F. She claims
it's in the AR. It's not, of course.
>>> "I'm not saying they were in on any conspiracy, David, but, IMO, they certainly "towed the line", if they didn't spin the report safely away from any conspiracy conclusions...even though they knew there were only two bullets that hit JFK and that they were fired from the rear. They just couldn't take a chance that their reporting the wounds precisely as they were wouldn't be misinterpreted...the stakes were too high....IMHO." <<<
You could be right, and I could be wrong. I've admitted that in the
past as well.
But I just cannot see all 3 doctors holding back on that BOH info.
Mainly because there just wasn't any valid enough REASON to hold back
such info. None. (IMO, again.)
And if it was discovered that they held back information about the
true nature of JFK's wounds....they'd be branded liars forever, and
there would be a good chance that nobody would trust ANYTHING they
said about the autopsy, forever furthering the notion that a
conspiracy had ended JFK's life in Dallas (which is just exactly the
kind of rumor they were trying to keep from spreading, per your
possible scenario).
Would they want to take that risk, even though they could easily
explain, per your scenario of events, the reasons why such a BOH wound
was present in JFK's head (i.e., his head simply fell apart like an
eggshell after the one bullet struck him FROM BEHIND)?
Well, perhaps they would take such a risk, and not report the whole
story. But I'll remain dubious about it for now.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "David, the ev. is overwhelming that at the very least the skull under the rear scalp was extensively fragmented...the best ev. being F8." <<<
>
>That F8 photo has always been a mystery to my eyes. I can't make out a
>damn thing. I'm always totally confused when I gaze upon it. (It's no
>wonder Baden testified with the damn thing upside-down. I probably
>would have too.)
>
>
>
>
>>>> "Now, are you absolutely positive Humes and Boswell would have reported seeing a right rear BOH wound?" <<<
>
>No, I'm not positive. No one can be positive of that, of course. But I
>think it's very likely they would have reported everything...including
>any larger-sized BOH wound, if it was present at the autopsy.
>
>Barb evidently thinks the BOH wound WAS reported by HB&F. She claims
>it's in the AR. It's not, of course.
Actually, it is, David. What one needs to remember is that at the time
of the WC, the head wound was not a bone (no pun intended) of
contention ... it was what it was. And *what* it was, as the
autopsists saw it once the scalp was reflected and additional pieces
fell to the table and/or were stuck to the scalp, was one massive hole
that encompassed most of the right side of the head from aft to fore.
Why would they comment on a BOH wound specifically when what they had
was one large wound? They didn't even have an intact whole entry wound
until they were able to replace some bone that completed that entry
hole .... Finck testified to that to the WC, Boswell testified to that
to the HSCA.
Once they had replaced what bone they could, including the piece of
bone that completed the entry hole, *then* they had an entry wound and
what was left of the wound ... they estimated they were able to fill
in all but about 1/4 of that defect void with bone pieces.
In their autopsy report, they reported the bottom line ... an entry
hole and the rest of the wound .... that told the story of where the
bullet went in, and the area where it could be identified that bullet
(or pieces thereof) had actually struck bone on the way out.
None of that changes the ONE large overall void they had at the
beginning of the autopsy, once they got the scalp reflected. And that
is the defect they measured and drew on their autopsy papers. So in
their report, they noted the location and size of the entry and the
size of the hole once they had put bone in that separated that entry
from the rest of the hole ... then they merely commented on the
overall areas/bones that the overall defect had included. That was
chiefly parietal bone ... a great deal of which is on the back side of
the head as well as on the top, temporal bone, and occipital bone.
As you can plainly see from the skull link I provided a couple of
posts ago, temporal, parietal and occipital bone meet up behind the
ear .... an area where Hill and Parkland reported seeing a wound, and
an area included in the 10cm wide measurement (from eop over 10cm
toward the right) made and drawn at autopsy.
>
>
>
>>>> "I'm not saying they were in on any conspiracy, David, but, IMO, they certainly "towed the line", if they didn't spin the report safely away from any conspiracy conclusions...even though they knew there were only two bullets that hit JFK and that they were fired from the rear. They just couldn't take a chance that their reporting the wounds precisely as they were wouldn't be misinterpreted...the stakes were too high....IMHO." <<<
>
>
>
>You could be right, and I could be wrong. I've admitted that in the
>past as well.
>
>But I just cannot see all 3 doctors holding back on that BOH info.
>Mainly because there just wasn't any valid enough REASON to hold back
>such info. None. (IMO, again.)
They didn't hold back on it, they just didn't lay out in their report
the complete cycle of what they had at the beginning and what they
ended up with after replacing bone. They DID note the bones involved
in the overall defect ... and that 10cm wide measurement tells us just
how much was missing from the eop over toward the ear. Measure 10cm
over from your eop. How much of the area between your eop and your ear
does that cover? Most of it.
Barb :-)
David Von Pein
There's no mention of as gaping hole in the BOH in the AR and you know
it. It was "chiefly parietal", extending "somewhat" into the
occipital. If a gaping hole had been at the far-rear of the head, the
AR would have said so. Period. There's no reason to hide that
information. None.
>>> "It's all irrelevant to what you say anyway as the wounds were where the wounds were ... regardless of where anyone at the time might report they came from and by whom." <<<
You think that Perry not communicating (officially) with someone re.
the trach incision through a bullet hole is "irrelevant"?
A curious stance indeed.
>>> "Autopsy determines the cause and manner of death ... and the details thereof ... number of wounds, direction, location, etc ... that's what autopsies are for." <<<
Yes. And H,B,&F accomplished all of those exact things. Every one of
them.
>>> "Perry announced to the world that he made an incision thru a wound in that press conference. Don't leave him holding this bag." <<<
But Perry certainly didn't know for a fact that the word about the
trach would get through to Bethesda...now did he? Obviously he didn't,
because word did not make it through.
Hence, I will leave Perry holding the bag in this particular
regard...because, IMO, it was inexcusable for him to not to have told
a SS man, or better still BURKLEY, about the trach/bullet wound before
the JFK party left Parkland. Utterly unbelievable.
And, of course, McClelland or Carrico or Clark or Peters or any number
of other doctors also just remained dead silent about the trach. And
we all know that some of those docs saw the bullet hole before the
trach was done...McClelland certainly did, plus some of the others in
ER-1.
With the other doctors, though, it could have been a situation whereby
they thought that the man who did the trach (Perry) would surely do
the telling...so there was no need for McClelland, et al, to mention
it to anybody. Could be. Beats me. But it's still unbelievable that
somebody didn't make that known to the Kennedy party at some point,
even sans the 10:30 AM call from Humes the next day.
>>> "There you are with that erroneous supposition that there couldn't be damage to the back of the head because the bullet came from the rear. Ridiculous." <<<
That's not what I implied in my comment you replied to here, Barb. I
said the whole "BOH Wound" matter is truly irrelevant in the long run
because of the fact there was just the ONE ENTRY HOLE in the back of
the head. So we KNOW where the one and only shot hit JFK's head...from
behind. It doesn't really matter where the other wounds were located.
(Unless you want to argue that Humes was wrong here in '67 when he
said there was just ONE entry wound. Do you think the fractured skull
MASKED a second entry hole? The doctors don't think that. I'm not
saying you think that either....I'm just tossing out ideas.).....
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>>>> "They didn't hide it in their working papers ... they measured it and drew it. They mentioned the areas of damage in the autopsy report." <<<
>
>There's no mention of as gaping hole in the BOH in the AR and you know
>it.
Oh for pete's sake. Do you not know and understand what you read in
their working papers, testimonies ... and the autopsy report about
fragments and their sizes and the overall descriptions of the
disruptions?
>When they reportIt was "chiefly parietal", extending "somewhat" into the
>occipital. If a gaping hole had been at the far-rear of the head, the
>AR would have said so. Period. There's no reason to hide that
>information. None.
They didn't hide anything. They also weren't writing for
non-professionals, and they also hedged things in several places in
the autopsy report ... like finessing the whole back/throat thing.
Telling the dimensions, explaining the fractures and fragments and the
bones involved doesn't hide anything .... and is generally
undderstandable to anyone with a lick of anatomic sense and knowledge.
They were criticized by the HSCA for not spelling things out in more
exact detail and instead saying that the damage taxed description.
>
>
>
>>>> "It's all irrelevant to what you say anyway as the wounds were where the wounds were ... regardless of where anyone at the time might report they came from and by whom." <<<
>
>You think that Perry not communicating (officially) with someone re.
>the trach incision through a bullet hole is "irrelevant"?
I didn't say that. In fact, I said it is ridicul;ous to think the
autopsists didn't know about that wound....I did say you can't lay
that lack off on Perry totally.
>
>A curious stance indeed.
It's not mine, your twists and turns and what you leave out is not
really curious either ... just rather points out the time I or anybody
else wastes. :-)
>
>
>>>> "Autopsy determines the cause and manner of death ... and the details thereof ... number of wounds, direction, location, etc ... that's what autopsies are for." <<<
>
>Yes. And H,B,&F accomplished all of those exact things. Every one of
>them.
Yup ... yet YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEM!!
LOL!
>
>
>
>>>> "Perry announced to the world that he made an incision thru a wound in that press conference. Don't leave him holding this bag." <<<
>
>But Perry certainly didn't know for a fact that the word about the
>trach would get through to Bethesda...now did he? Obviously he didn't,
>because word did not make it through.
So we are told. I also mentioned early report of treatment notes being
hand carried by Burkley, that Burkley was present at both locations,
etc. It is the autopsist who, if not having received any info, should
have called Parkland and spoke to the treating physicians to learn
anything he should be aware of at autopsy. You think Perry and Clark
had crystal balls about where the body was going or which doctors
would be perfoeming the autopsy?
>
>Hence, I will leave Perry holding the bag in this particular
>regard...because, IMO, it was inexcusable for him to not to have told
>a SS man, or better still BURKLEY, about the trach/bullet wound before
>the JFK party left Parkland. Utterly unbelievable.
Burkley was THERE!!!!!!
>
>And, of course, McClelland or Carrico or Clark or Peters or any number
>of other doctors also just remained dead silent about the trach. And
>we all know that some of those docs saw the bullet hole before the
>trach was done...McClelland certainly did, plus some of the others in
>ER-1.
And they wopuld have called whom -- on their crystal ball cell phones?
:-)
What a silly thing to get your knickers in a knot over....imho, of
course.
>
>With the other doctors, though, it could have been a situation whereby
>they thought that the man who did the trach (Perry) would surely do
>the telling...so there was no need for McClelland, et al, to mention
>it to anybody. Could be. Beats me. But it's still unbelievable that
>somebody didn't make that known to the Kennedy party at some point,
>even sans the 10:30 AM call from Humes the next day.
Do you think it was some secret in Trauma Room 1 or that there was
anybody in the Kennedy party would din't know? If so, I think you are
very naive. The main person who knew was the one doctor, JFK's
physician, who was present in both places. HE is who should have
trasmitted the info ... and it is quite possible that he carried some
written treatment notes with him.
>
>
>
>>>> "There you are with that erroneous supposition that there couldn't be damage to the back of the head because the bullet came from the rear. Ridiculous." <<<
>
>That's not what I implied in my comment you replied to here, Barb. I
>said the whole "BOH Wound" matter is truly irrelevant in the long run
>because of the fact there was just the ONE ENTRY HOLE in the back of
>the head. So we KNOW where the one and only shot hit JFK's head...from
>behind. It doesn't really matter where the other wounds were located.
>(Unless you want to argue that Humes was wrong here in '67 when he
>said there was just ONE entry wound. Do you think the fractured skull
>MASKED a second entry hole? The doctors don't think that. I'm not
>saying you think that either....I'm just tossing out ideas.).....
If BOH damage is so irrelevant, one can't help but wonder why LNs (in
general) go to such extreme and time consuming lengths to poo-poo the
very notion. I agree it's ridiculous ... as the overwhelming evidence
is that the wound JFK suffered included most of the right side of his
head.... including the right rear. It is the fear of damage to the
right rear meaning conspiracy that drove the wound up and results in
the vehement denials of damage .... and the silly dismissals of both
the Parkland docs (especially the neurosurgeon) as well as laying a
preposterous 4" error at the feet of the autopsists. It's all
nonsense.
>
>DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes,
>sir."
>
>RATHER -- "And that was where?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
>the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
>
>RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
>
>DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
>front and right side of the President's head."
Yup ... that was the bottomline after they got as much bone put back
in as they had to work with .... an entry hole and the area they could
see anatomic evidence of bullet pieces having struck the skull from
the inside.
Has nada to do with overall extebnt of damage. You'll note ( or
should) that the question Rather asked Humes was whether or not there
was only ONE wound to the head. Humnes answered "There was only ONE
ENTRANCE WOUND." And that is true ... that is all they found
anatomical evidence for. They also only found anatomic evidence in one
area of the otherwise blasted, fractured and fragmented side of the
head where they could identify bullet pieces having struck bone from
the inside to the outside.
Go figure how you figure that means anything as regards the overall
damae to the skull. Fragments are pieces of bone that aren't where
they are supposed to be ... either missing totally (there were some of
those) or fell out when they reflected the scalp ... or remained stuck
to the underside of the scalp. That made for the aft to fore quite
large wound they measured and drew ... and then they did their best to
put humpty dumpty back together again, as best they could ... and that
included completing the entry hole and getting all but about 1/4 of
the area filled back in with bone pieces.
So, your point of all this since you now say you know a bullet from
the rear could cause rear damage and because you now say damage to the
rear of the head is irrelevant was?????????????
Seemed like a major relevant issue to you when you started the thread
with a 276 line post.
You opined that all those Parkland docs couldn't have seen a rear
wound with JFK on his back.
I e-mailed you a pic that shows you are incorrect about that.
You claimed the Parkland reports are at odds with the Bethesda reports
as regards damage to the right rear of the head .... they are not only
not at odds, but they corroborate one another.
You kept referring to damage to the rear of the head as "exit" wound
... as in a shot having come from the front. You now admit rear damage
does not necessarily mean a shot from the front .... so, I guess
that's one good thing that's come out of this morass.
Barb :-)
>
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2007 20:35:05 -0400, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@aol.com>
Of course, Dr. Carrico did not study the throat wound. Instead, he
inserted a breathing tube into the bullet hole. This tube was a
measure of the size and direction of the wound track. Obviously this
measure of direction alleviated possible concerns whether a bullet had
struck the spine.
> Given a small wound and a large wound, the logical
> supposition given no other knowledge about more bullets or more wounds
> would have been in small, out big. That's the only reason for what
> they opined.
A straight line connecting the small throat wound and the large rear
head wound would have placed a shooter in unreasonable places. So the
logical conclusion should have been at least two bullets inflicted the
observed wounds.
> It just turned out to be incorrect given what was found
> at autopsy, though there is that Rankin thing about more things from
> the autopsy needing to be worked out in executive session Jan 27, 1964
> ... a time when all supposition should/would have been over as the
> autopsy report was supposedly final.
By the "Rankin thing," would you be referring to the problem of the
bullet that became elevated so that it raised rather than coming out
at the sharp angle that it entered?
Herbert
>
> Barb :-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
John Canal
Pein says...
>
>>>>"David, the ev. is overwhelming that at the very least the skull under the rear
>>>>scalp was extensively fragmented...the best ev. being F8." <<<
>
>That F8 photo has always been a mystery to my eyes. I can't make out a
>damn thing. I'm always totally confused when I gaze upon it. (It's no
>wonder Baden testified with the damn thing upside-down. I probably
>would have too.)
And how about the Clark Panel?...they said it was unuseable....go figure.
Anyway, David, IMO, F8 is the most important autopsy photo. How about
emailing me your email address and I send you a very user-friendly graphic
that uses color codes to show what's being seen in F8. My graphics were
helpful to a couple of individuals who were also having problems
deciphering it. My email: jca...@webtv.net
>>>>"Now, are you absolutely positive Humes and Boswell would have reported seeing a
>>>>right rear BOH wound?" <<<
>
>No, I'm not positive. No one can be positive of that, of course. But I
>think it's very likely they would have reported everything...including
>any larger-sized BOH wound, if it was present at the autopsy.
Ok, I know your position on that...no sense going there again and wasting
our time and that of the moderators. Perhaps understanding F8 will make a
dent in your position...we'll see.
>Barb evidently thinks the BOH wound WAS reported by HB&F. She claims
>it's in the AR. It's not, of course.
Barb's right, IMO.....and her and P. Seaton do agree with each other that
it was reported: ("....chiefly parietal, but extending somewhat into the
temporal and occipital").....that area being behind the right ear. That
being said, however, while all three of us agree there was a BOH wound,
I've always said that the report stopped short of describing the full
extent of the defect. IOW, I've always claimed that it went much further
into the occipital that "somewhat". Anyway, We're not that far off from
each other, though....actually no big deal.
>>>>"I'm not saying they were in on any conspiracy, David, but, IMO, they certainly
>>>>"towed the line", if they didn't spin the report safely away from any conspiracy
>>>>conclusions...even though they knew there were only two bullets that hit JFK and
>>>>that they were fired from the rear. They just couldn't take a chance that their
>>>>reporting the wounds precisely as they were wouldn't be misinterpreted...the
>>>>stakes were too high....IMHO." <<<
>
>
>
>You could be right, and I could be wrong. I've admitted that in the
>past as well.
Maybe I'm getting stubborn in my old age, but I'm less open to being wrong than
that....and that's probably a plus for you and a negative mark for me.
>But I just cannot see all 3 doctors holding back on that BOH info.
I don't think Finck was involved...he was an outsider (U.S. Army, etc.), while
H&B were Navy and had worked together at Bethesda. In any case, most of the
"funny business" was done before he got there.
>Mainly because there just wasn't any valid enough REASON to hold back
>such info. None. (IMO, again.)
Well, you know mine...but, remember all that it would have taken would have been
one paranoid superior there in or close to the morgue...in spite of what Humes
said about he himself being in charge...heck, what else was he going to say
about the autopsy....some general or admiral desk jockey was in charge?
>And if it was discovered that they held back information about the
>true nature of JFK's wounds....they'd be branded liars forever, and
>there would be a good chance that nobody would trust ANYTHING they
>said about the autopsy, forever furthering the notion that a
>conspiracy had ended JFK's life in Dallas (which is just exactly the
>kind of rumor they were trying to keep from spreading, per your
>possible scenario).
That's a good point...but I disagree. Do you think, if the Mob had been
sucessfull in assassinating Castro, the CIA officers who organized the effort
would have been brought up on any charges...the last I knew murder was a serious
offense and I don't recall us being at war with Cuba, albeit the BOP invason.
In any case, our government and even individuals or small groups of individuals
(ask Ollie North)operating seperately within it, have done and will continue do
extraordinary things (outside the law) in a heartbeat as long as they can say it
was in the best interest of the nation....that justificaton is a free pass, as
far as that goes, IMO.
>Would they want to take that risk, even though they could easily
>explain, per your scenario of events, the reasons why such a BOH wound
>was present in JFK's head (i.e., his head simply fell apart like an
>eggshell after the one bullet struck him FROM BEHIND)?
But why, David, If they thought they could be 100% truthful and then explain
everything so everyone was happy did they: Lie about the trajectory? Put the
dot marking the back wound on his face sheet too low? Not say until the ARRB
that they replaced rear bone pieces before the x-rays? Mismark (Ford) the back
wound? Say they recovered the 6.5 mm thing when they did no such thing? I could
go on for a while, but I've a feeling you're getting sleepy, so I'll give you a
break and stop there. :-)
>Well, perhaps they would take such a risk, and not report the whole
>story. But I'll remain dubious about it for now.
Of course you are...especially they way VB went on this. Remember, I told you
what he'd write on the BOH wound...way before the book came out.
John Canal
Gerry Simone (O)
I thought that if there was a boh large exit wound, they'd notice assuming
blood pressure and transfusion.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vvsk93l12fi083vrq...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Jul 15, 9:57 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net>
I don't see how, frankly ... inserting the tube would not in and of
itself determine the track any bullet had taken beyond the hole ....
nor whether or not it had injured the spine.
>
>> Given a small wound and a large wound, the logical
>> supposition given no other knowledge about more bullets or more wounds
>> would have been in small, out big. That's the only reason for what
>> they opined.
>
>A straight line connecting the small throat wound and the large rear
>head wound would have placed a shooter in unreasonable places. So the
>logical conclusion should have been at least two bullets inflicted the
>observed wounds.
You can't assume a linear trajectory. They apparently knew that.
>
>> It just turned out to be incorrect given what was found
>> at autopsy, though there is that Rankin thing about more things from
>> the autopsy needing to be worked out in executive session Jan 27, 1964
>> ... a time when all supposition should/would have been over as the
>> autopsy report was supposedly final.
>
>By the "Rankin thing," would you be referring to the problem of the
>bullet that became elevated so that it raised rather than coming out
>at the sharp angle that it entered?
The WC executive transcript from January 27, 1964 where Rankin relates
that there are things relating to the wounds...what came in or went
out the throat ... that still had to be developed. He refers to things
they have there in the autopsy. The major point being that once the
autopsy report is final, there are no more questions about where
wounds were or what direction they came from, so this conversation to
the commissioners is more than a little odd. Here's a link to that
section of the transcript:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0069a.htm
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
Exactly which doctors did have that theory? One or two?
> Herbert
Anthony Marsh
That makes absolutely no sense. The trache tube does not follow the path
of the bullet wound. It is inserted into the air pipe. What was the
diameter of the trache tube used? Are you arguing that the ER doctors
selected which size trache tube to use according to the caliber of the
bullet?
>> Given a small wound and a large wound, the logical
>> supposition given no other knowledge about more bullets or more wounds
>> would have been in small, out big. That's the only reason for what
>> they opined.
>
> A straight line connecting the small throat wound and the large rear
> head wound would have placed a shooter in unreasonable places. So the
> logical conclusion should have been at least two bullets inflicted the
> observed wounds.
>
You can't connect points like than and assume a straight line trajectory
anywhere. It was supposed to be only a small fragment which broke off a
whole bullet. If not the whole bullet, then obviously their theory
involves a bullet breaking up into DIVERGENT pieces.
>> It just turned out to be incorrect given what was found
>> at autopsy, though there is that Rankin thing about more things from
>> the autopsy needing to be worked out in executive session Jan 27, 1964
>> ... a time when all supposition should/would have been over as the
>> autopsy report was supposedly final.
>
> By the "Rankin thing," would you be referring to the problem of the
> bullet that became elevated so that it raised rather than coming out
> at the sharp angle that it entered?
>
How does the bullet hit the back BELOW where a bullet exited the throat?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "They didn't hide it in their working papers ... they measured it and drew it. They mentioned the areas of damage in the autopsy report." <<<
>
> There's no mention of as gaping hole in the BOH in the AR and you know
> it. It was "chiefly parietal", extending "somewhat" into the
> occipital. If a gaping hole had been at the far-rear of the head, the
> AR would have said so. Period. There's no reason to hide that
> information. None.
>
There are tons of references to a big hole in the back of the head. And
drawings of it in the ARRB testimonies. I disagree with those, but you
simply can't pretend they don't exist.
Do you still think there was an entrance wound just slightly above the
EOP? Does Bugliosi?
Anthony Marsh
The theory of the advocates of the back of the head wound is not that it
was part of one large wound, but that it was a second and distinctly
separate wound from the large wound on the right top of the head.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "David, the ev. is overwhelming that at the very least the skull under the rear scalp was extensively fragmented...the best ev. being F8." <<<
>
> That F8 photo has always been a mystery to my eyes. I can't make out a
> damn thing. I'm always totally confused when I gaze upon it. (It's no
> wonder Baden testified with the damn thing upside-down. I probably
> would have too.)
>
What do you mean by upside down? Post a photo showing how he had it on
the easel and then how you think it should be.
>
>
>
>>>> "Now, are you absolutely positive Humes and Boswell would have reported seeing a right rear BOH wound?" <<<
>
> No, I'm not positive. No one can be positive of that, of course. But I
> think it's very likely they would have reported everything...including
> any larger-sized BOH wound, if it was present at the autopsy.
>
> Barb evidently thinks the BOH wound WAS reported by HB&F. She claims
> it's in the AR. It's not, of course.
>
>
>
>>>> "I'm not saying they were in on any conspiracy, David, but, IMO, they certainly "towed the line", if they didn't spin the report safely away from any conspiracy conclusions...even though they knew there were only two bullets that hit JFK and that they were fired from the rear. They just couldn't take a chance that their reporting the wounds precisely as they were wouldn't be misinterpreted...the stakes were too high....IMHO." <<<
>
>
>
> You could be right, and I could be wrong. I've admitted that in the
> past as well.
>
> But I just cannot see all 3 doctors holding back on that BOH info.
> Mainly because there just wasn't any valid enough REASON to hold back
> such info. None. (IMO, again.)
>
There was no BOH wound. There were no wounds on the back of the head.
Barb Junkkarinen
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Thanks.
>
>I thought that if there was a boh large exit wound, they'd notice assuming
>blood pressure and transfusion.
Sure...they knew they had a quite large wound and blood was gushing
out .... entrance, exit or caused by a mach truck driving through thr
head .... ir was a large wound bleeding profusely ... the cause
irrelevant to the bleeding and bp issue they were dealing with at the
time. They supposed it was an exit because they had a small hole in
the throat and a large hole in the right rear of the head .... not
knowing about other wounds or the extent of the damage to the skull
overall. Profuse bleeding and resultant low/no blood pressure does not
in and of itself mean "bullet exit wound."
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Not the ones I know. I realize there are "shots from the front only"
CTs out there ... a rare breed these days from the ones I know.
That there was a large boh wound is not a theory, it's in the record
from DP, from several hands on people at Parkland ... and from
Bethesda.
Barb :-)
Peter Fokes
So Barb, it appears you agree with Dr. Grossmann who believed the
wound on the right side of the head extended into the back of the
head. Didn't he say that wound on the BOH was "too big" to be an
entrance wound? He also believed there was a smaller entry wound on
the BOH but that is a different matter.
>Barb :-)
PF
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>There was no BOH wound. There were no wounds on the back of the head.
IS your theory that the back of Kennedy's skull was in "pristine"
condition, Tony?
PF
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:36:03 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
The wound I've been talking about, Peter, is the BOH wound ... it was
noted as being in the right rear of the head ... behind the ear.
That's the part Parkland saw ... Parkland was not able to see the
wound on what is the side of the head ... ala the flap that we see
open up in the Z-film as that flap was apparently closed by Jackie on
the way to the hospital.
The right rear behind the ear IS the back of the head. And, according
to the autopsists, that area was part of the overall great defect
whick extended 10cm lateral right from the eop.
At the beginning of the autopsy, when they reflected the scalp and
bone pieces fell out onto the table or remained stuck to the scalp,
they had one humongous hole .... they could see a "portion" of the
entry hole but the entire circumference of that entry hole was not
present ... they were able to fit a piece of bone back in later and
complete that entry hole, were also able to fit other bones pieces
back in and ultimately had a nice neat and complete entry hole and
what was left of the defect that they never had the bone to fill in,
in the top right of the skull.
Grossman is the only one who reports seeing a separate entrance hole
.... or seeing the back of the head all the way over to the eop.
Others reported the head was turned for a better look, but not that
far ... not even by Kemp Clark, the chief of neurosurgery who took a
specific look at the wound. Clark was right at the gurney, a hands on
player. '
At best, according to the documentation, Grossman *may* have been in
the room. His reporting of all his activities and claims of what he
saw, are latter day.
No one mentions him being in TR1 in their WC testimony .... Salyer
testified to thinking he saw Grossman arrivingr with Kemp Clark but
wasn't sure Grossman ever entered the room. Even Kemp Clark,
Grossman's superior, didn't name Grossman as being in TR1,
I understand Grossman is just a sweetheart of a man, but I would tread
very carefully in using him for anything that went on in TR1 .... as
there just is zero documentation he was ever in the room.
Here's an article I helped David Lifton with one wild and crazy
weekend a few years ago ... when news of Grossman's
article/participation broke.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 15 Jul 2007 13:48:46 -0400, "Gerry Simone \(H\)"
> <newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Didn't Dr. Carrico or others say they made a quick check of JFK's posterior
>> to ensure no significant wounds?
>
> on closer reading, it seems clear he is saying "the right posterior
> part of the head" was not part of an "entry" wound. That wound was an
> extension of the exit wound on the right side of his head.
>
> He describes the "other" wound ... "an opening the size of a quarter"
> as a bullet entry wound.
>
His quarter size wound was what you people are calling a massive head
wound? Show me this quarter size wound in the autopsy photos.
> I realize both Barb and John Canal view Dr. Grossmann's recollections
> with a great deal of skepticism.
>
> PF
>
>
>
>> Didn't external cardiac massage or giving blood result in profuse bleeding
>>from the head to indicate exit wounds?
Anthony Marsh
> Didn't Dr. Carrico or others say they made a quick check of JFK's posterior
> to ensure no significant wounds?
>
No.
> Didn't external cardiac massage or giving blood result in profuse bleeding
> from the head to indicate exit wounds?
>
No. Just wounds. Not whether it is entrance or exit.
Herbert Blenner
I meant to write past the bullet hole instead of "into the bullet
hole." For details see my reply to Barb.
>
> >> Given a small wound and a large wound, the logical
> >> supposition given no other knowledge about more bullets or more wounds
> >> would have been in small, out big. That's the only reason for what
> >> they opined.
>
> > A straight line connecting the small throat wound and the large rear
> > head wound would have placed a shooter in unreasonable places. So the
> > logical conclusion should have been at least two bullets inflicted the
> > observed wounds.
>
> You can't connect points like than and assume a straight line trajectory
> anywhere. It was supposed to be only a small fragment which broke off a
> whole bullet. If not the whole bullet, then obviously their theory
> involves a bullet breaking up into DIVERGENT pieces.
You have commented on the wrong speculation by the wrong people in the
wrong place.
>
> >> It just turned out to be incorrect given what was found
> >> at autopsy, though there is that Rankin thing about more things from
> >> the autopsy needing to be worked out in executive session Jan 27, 1964
> >> ... a time when all supposition should/would have been over as the
> >> autopsy report was supposedly final.
>
> > By the "Rankin thing," would you be referring to the problem of the
> > bullet that became elevated so that it raised rather than coming out
> > at the sharp angle that it entered?
>
> How does the bullet hit the back BELOW where a bullet exited the throat?
Draw a diagram that shows the back wound "BELOW" the throat wound.
Herbert
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
> On 16 Jul 2007 16:45:54 -0400, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@aol.com>
I wrote "into the bullet hole" when I should have said past the bullet
hole. So the visual localization of the peripheral tracheal injury and the
previously observed surface wound near the midline of the throat
identified the initial direction of the wound track under the skin as on
course to miss the centrally located spine.
>
>
>
> >> Given a small wound and a large wound, the logical
> >> supposition given no other knowledge about more bullets or more wounds
> >> would have been in small, out big. That's the only reason for what
> >> they opined.
>
> >A straight line connecting the small throat wound and the large rear
> >head wound would have placed a shooter in unreasonable places. So the
> >logical conclusion should have been at least two bullets inflicted the
> >observed wounds.
>
> You can't assume a linear trajectory. They apparently knew that.
A bullet with sufficient speed to transit soft tissue of the brain and
burst through the skull could not have made a hairpin turn in the neck. So
the trajectory could differ only slightly from linear.
Herbert
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c211a871fea86131
Thank you for the above-linked post, Barb. Very-nicely stated.
But we're still left with this statement from Dr. Humes in 1967 (the
first time he appeared in public after his WC testimony):
"And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and
right side of the President's head." -- DR. JAMES HUMES; JUNE 1967
Footnote -- I suppose it's quite possible indeed that Humes merely
wanted to talk about only the MOST RELEVANT portions of the large,
gaping wound to JFK's head in his interview on CBS-TV -- i.e., the
place on Kennedy's head where he KNEW FOR A FACT THE BULLET EXITED
(the "right front" of the head; see later discussion in this post).
Therefore, Humes doesn't mention to the CBS audience anything about
the fragmentation of the President's skull that might have existed in
the BOH after the scalp was reflected, which would be considered (in
Humes' mind) SECONDARY (or extended) skull fractures, which only
existed as a result of the actual EXIT hole in the right-frontal part
of the head.*
* = The above being per the "BOH" scenario nicely laid out in the
above-linked post by Barb, and which has also been laid out in great
detail by John Canal in the past as well.
It's something to ponder, for sure. I.E.: The idea that the doctors,
who were dealing with a more massive head wound than most people
believe, only felt the need to discuss and/or document the location on
JFK's head where the autopsists knew the bullet EXITED the head, which
was "chiefly parietal" (right side, top, and toward the front of the
skull).
Allow me to interject another Vince Bugliosi quote which goes directly
to the subject being discussed....
(I'll pause for a moment as the whole room lets out a groan of despair
for my having mentioned another VB hunk of verbiage in one of my
postings.) ~belly laugh ensues~ (I'll now quote Vince. Thank you. The
following text is taken directly from my review of Vince's book,
"Reclaiming History").....
============================
DVP: In the endnotes located on the CD-ROM included at the back of the
book, Bugliosi goes into additional detail with respect to the precise
location of the exit wound in JFK's head:
"On the issue of the locus of the head exit wound, perhaps the most
overlooked piece of medical and scientific evidence in books on the
assassination that proves the exit wound was in the right front of the
president's head is the fact that of the three fragments of the skull
found inside the presidential limousine, the HSCA forensic pathology
panel said that autopsy X-rays show that the largest one, triangular
in shape, contained "a portion of the right coronal
suture." {i.e.:}...The juncture between the parietal (side and top)
and frontal bone.
"Although the bullet fragmented upon striking bone in the president's
head, the HSCA concluded that the main part of the bullet literally
exited along the coronal suture line to the right front of the
president's head.
"Dr. Michael Baden {of the HSCA's pathology panel} told me, "The
autopsy photographs clearly show that the semicircular defect was half
of a bullet wound with an exit beveling, and this caused most of the
damage to Kennedy's parietal and frontal bones" (Telephone interview
of Dr. Michael Baden by {Vincent Bugliosi} on January 8, 2000)." ....
"The fact that the largest fragment found of the president's skull was
along the coronal suture, that this triangular fragment was one of
three that, in the aggregate, lined up, on reconstruction, with the
large defect to the right front of the president's skull, and that
this large fragment of bone was beveled on its outer surface, rather
than its inner surface, provide conclusive evidence of an exiting
bullet to the right front of the president's head." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; Pages 235-236 of Endnotes on the CD-ROM
============================
David Von Pein
had it {F8} on the easel and then how you think it should be." <<<
OK. Maybe he had it "sideways" or something. I don't know. But CTers
always bark that Baden didn't have it oriented correctly...which is my
whole trouble too...the orientation of that grotesque photo.
I wouldn't have the slightest way of knowing what was "up" vs. "down" in
that picture....even if somebody in authority assured me which was which.
It's a total mess, and I've never been able to make head nor tail out of
anything in that photograph.
I'm surprised the CTers, in fact, haven't called THAT picture a fake too.
Or...have they? Probably so, huh? ;)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Don't feel like the lone ranger on not being able to orient F8 ... who
knows if anyone has it correctly, but I have come to believe John
Canal has it figured out.
Baden, by the way, turned my 8x10 glossy of that photo round and round
then thrust his hand holding the pic in the air and shrugged his
shoulders when I asked him to orient it for me at a little private
lunch meeting 6 or 7 of us were able to have with Wecht and Baden in
Monterey, Calif a few years ago. He didn't have a clue how it should
be either.
If you don't have John Canal's colored and coded F8, ask him pretty
please and he'll probably send it to you. One prob with reading F8 is
realizing that part of what you are looking at is separated by void
from the other part you are looking at .... people with that spatial
ability, like Paul Seaton, have a much better time with this, me
thinks. It was through John's patience ... and color coding and notes,
that I was finally able to see what he was pointing out. And I think
he's got it correct or nearer so than anyone else I've ever seen has.
Barb :-)
>
David Von Pein
Sure. You're correct. Burkley was at both places (Parkland &
Bethesda). But did he know about the bullet hole in the throat when he
arrived at Parkland?
I can't find any documentation that verifies that Dr. Burkley KNEW
that a bullet hole had been obliterated by Perry's trach. Does such
documentation exist? If so, please link it.
This is from Burkley's 11/28/78 HSCA Affidavit:
"I was with President Kennedy in Dallas. I arrived at the Parkland
Hospital within five minutes of the President's arrival. I checked the
President's physical condition, gave the doctors working with the
President the blood type and some adrenal medication (Sol U Cortef) to
place in the intravenous blood and fluids which were being
administered. My findings clearly indicated that death was certain and
imminent." -- G. Burkley
If Burkley never saw the bullet hole in JFK's throat, he was in the
very same dark boat as nearly everyone else in Trauma Room One. IOW,
he couldn't have known about the bullet hole unless someone who saw it
told him it was there.
>>> "And they would have called whom -- on their crystal ball cell phones?" <<<
No...just pick up a phone (non-cellular variety would due very nicely)
and CALL WASHINGTON. Tell SOMEBODY at the White House. Or tell
somebody...SOMEWHERE, to make sure the word gets through to those who
would need to know at the autopsy. (And the TV press conference was
obviously not good enough. Nor should Perry have thought it would be
good enough to make sure the autopsists knew of this important
information. IMO, that is.)
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
Wherein I magically raise Barb's arms and hands upward and make her
shout: Pshawwwww!!!!
Yes. I understand. That's why I asked. Dr. Grossmann also believed the
wound extended to the BOH ... behind the ear. He said "Kennedy had a
large wound separate from the temple wound in the BOH -- much too
large to be an entrance wound." (Boston Globe, 1981) On the Larry King
show in 2003 he said: "He had very thick bristly hair, and when you
parted the hair you could see that the right posterior part of the
head ... was simply blasted out." (Larry King Live , Nov. 2003) Dr.
Grossmann is describing a wound that extended into the back of the
head. Dr. Grossmann *also* describes a smaller wound about the size of
a quarter.
>That's the part Parkland saw ... Parkland was not able to see the
>wound on what is the side of the head ... ala the flap that we see
>open up in the Z-film as that flap was apparently closed by Jackie on
>the way to the hospital.
Ok. I hear Dr. Grossmann was in the limo, and told her what to do!
>The right rear behind the ear IS the back of the head.
No dispute there. That is the area Dr. Grossmann is referring to when
he describes "a large separate wound from the temple wound in the
BOH."
And, according
>to the autopsists, that area was part of the overall great defect
>whick extended 10cm lateral right from the eop.
Yup.
>
>At the beginning of the autopsy, when they reflected the scalp
Before they reflected back the scalp, there had to be a hole in the
scalp where the bullet entered, correct? Perhaps that small wound in
the scalp is what Dr. Grossmann saw when he wasn't observing Jackie
out of the corner of his eye wearing a white dress! He also saw a
larger BOH wound that was not the entrance wound.
and
>bone pieces fell out onto the table or remained stuck to the scalp,
>they had one humongous hole .... they could see a "portion" of the
>entry hole but the entire circumference of that entry hole was not
>present ... they were able to fit a piece of bone back in later and
>complete that entry hole, were also able to fit other bones pieces
>back in and ultimately had a nice neat and complete entry hole and
>what was left of the defect that they never had the bone to fill in,
>in the top right of the skull.
Ok
>
>Grossman is the only one who reports seeing a separate entrance hole
>.... or seeing the back of the head all the way over to the eop.
He said the large hole was too big to be an entrance wound. He did see
one smaller "entry" wound about the size of quarter. While he could
see a "small wound" no one else could see a full size doctor named
Grossmann at head of table with Dr. Kemp Clark!
>Others reported the head was turned for a better look, but not that
>far ... not even by Kemp Clark, the chief of neurosurgery who took a
>specific look at the wound. Clark was right at the gurney, a hands on
>player. '
Yup. Dr. Grossmann claims he was right there with Kemp.
>
>At best, according to the documentation, Grossman *may* have been in
>the room. His reporting of all his activities and claims of what he
>saw, are latter day.
False memory syndrome? And such a qualified fellow! Who are we to
believe?
>
>No one mentions him being in TR1 in their WC testimony ....
Oh my! Dr. Grossmann is creating his participation out of thin air?
> Salyer
>testified to thinking he saw Grossman arrivingr with Kemp Clark
Whew.
> but
>wasn't sure Grossman ever entered the room.
Uh oh ~~
> Even Kemp Clark,
>Grossman's superior, didn't name Grossman as being in TR1,
Was he asked specifically about Dr. G?
>
>I understand Grossman is just a sweetheart of a man, but I would tread
>very carefully in using him for anything that went on in TR1 .... as
>there just is zero documentation he was ever in the room.
Salyer? Not really, eh? Dr. Grossmann has a face mask on! hehe
>Here's an article I helped David Lifton with one wild and crazy
>weekend a few years ago ... when news of Grossman's
>article/participation broke.
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm
With David Lifton?
Mmmm .... you don't believe in body alteration, do you Barb?
Now the interview with Dr. Grossmann in the Boston Globe was not 40
years after the event. Did he ever publish a book as David hints at in
the article? It's too bad the interview with Dr. Grossmann in 1990
was not rescheduled. 15 seconds is a reasonable length of time to
remember something. Look at all the people who remember shots that
occurred in even less time! It's no big deal if he didn't remember if
it was a table or stretcher or the orientation. He describes the entry
wound as "near the EOP—centerline, or perhaps just right of center.”
Where is the diagram he drew? So he didn't see JFK placed in coffin
... not important imo. White dress? So he confused the colour of the
dress ... not important imo. And so what if he saw her in Houston in a
white dress? This statement applies to ALL the witnesses: "The
inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality
of the doctor’s memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works
and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness
testimony." (ARRB Final report, p. 123)
Lots of folks said they "didn’t get a very good look, ... [and] really
hadn’t seen very much." I see nothing unusual about him wanting to
see photos at Archives. Heck, Chad did too! You can remember the
wounds "distinctly" yet not have a long look. I would imagine a "very
good look" would involve more time.
Carrico said: "I don’t recall right offhand anyone else. There were
other doctors in there. I just can’t specifically remember ...."
"They" worked on the President is not really an unusual expression, is
it? Didn't Jackie say: "I want them to see what they have done?"
Has anyone placed Dr. Grossmann at some other location at Parkland at
the time he claims to have been "in the room"?
I know, I know .... I am being a devil's advocate. Surely I am naive
and silly and simply refusing to allow the truth to seep into my
porous cranium.
Where art thou Dr. Grossmann?
PF
tomnln
did not communicate with each other.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184648275....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
rwa...@despammed.com
snip
>
> I wouldn't have the slightest way of knowing what was "up" vs. "down" in
> that picture....even if somebody in authority assured me which was which.
> It's a total mess, and I've never been able to make head nor tail out of
> anything in that photograph.
>
> I'm surprised the CTers, in fact, haven't called THAT picture a fake too.
> Or...have they? Probably so, huh? ;)
This is the problem. Thousands of people examining material that they
don't understand. Or worse, they see it, and deny what it actually is.
(Blood clot my eye.) Of course, we've been over F8 up and down and inside
and out elsewhere in a recent thread so I'm not going to repeat it here.
But when oriented properly, with the long axis of the photo horizontal, it
shows the anterior aspect of the cranium looking somewhat down into
cranial cavity, and toward the posterior cranial fossa:
Anthony Marsh
Peter Fokes wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:45:36 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>=20
> Wherein I magically raise Barb's arms and hands upward and make her
> shout: Pshawwwww!!!!
>=20
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:58:23 -0400, Peter Fokes<jp...@toronto.hm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:36:03 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
>>> <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16 Jul 2007 19:30:41 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 Jul 2007 10:41:51 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com=
>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "David, the ev. is overwhelming that at the very least the sku=
ll under the rear scalp was extensively fragmented...the best ev. being F=
8." <<<
>>>>>>> That F8 photo has always been a mystery to my eyes. I can't make =
out a
>>>>>>> damn thing. I'm always totally confused when I gaze upon it. (It'=
s no
>>>>>>> wonder Baden testified with the damn thing upside-down. I probabl=
y
>>>>>>> would have too.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Now, are you absolutely positive Humes and Boswell would have=
reported seeing a right rear BOH wound?" <<<
>>>>>>> No, I'm not positive. No one can be positive of that, of course. =
But I
>>>>>>> think it's very likely they would have reported everything...incl=
uding
>>>>>>> any larger-sized BOH wound, if it was present at the autopsy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Barb evidently thinks the BOH wound WAS reported by HB&F. She cla=
ims
>>>>>>> it's in the AR. It's not, of course.
>>>>>> Actually, it is, David. What one needs to remember is that at the =
time
>>>>>> of the WC, the head wound was not a bone (no pun intended) of
>>>>>> contention ... it was what it was. And *what* it was, as the
>>>>>> autopsists saw it once the scalp was reflected and additional piec=
es
>>>>>> fell to the table and/or were stuck to the scalp, was one massive =
hole
>>>>>> that encompassed most of the right side of the head from aft to fo=
re.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would they comment on a BOH wound specifically when what they =
had
>>>>>> was one large wound? They didn't even have an intact whole entry w=
ound
>>>>>> until they were able to replace some bone that completed that entr=
y
>>>>>> hole .... Finck testified to that to the WC, Boswell testified to =
that
>>>>>> to the HSCA.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The theory of the advocates of the back of the head wound is not th=
at it=20
>>>>> was part of one large wound, but that it was a second and distinctl=
y=20
>>>>> separate wound from the large wound on the right top of the head.
>>>> Not the ones I know. I realize there are "shots from the front only"
>>>> CTs out there ... a rare breed these days from the ones I know.
>>>> That there was a large boh wound is not a theory, it's in the record
>>> >from DP, from several hands on people at Parkland ... and from
>>>> Bethesda.
>>>
>>> So Barb, it appears you agree with Dr. Grossmann who believed the
>>> wound on the right side of the head extended into the back of the
>>> head. Didn't he say that wound on the BOH was "too big" to be an
>>> entrance wound? He also believed there was a smaller entry wound on
>>> the BOH but that is a different matter.
>> The wound I've been talking about, Peter, is the BOH wound ... it was
>> noted as being in the right rear of the head ... behind the ear.
>=20
>=20
> Yes. I understand. That's why I asked. Dr. Grossmann also believed the
> wound extended to the BOH ... behind the ear. He said "Kennedy had a
> large wound separate from the temple wound in the BOH -- much too
> large to be an entrance wound." (Boston Globe, 1981) On the Larry King
> show in 2003 he said: "He had very thick bristly hair, and when you
> parted the hair you could see that the right posterior part of the
> head ... was simply blasted out." (Larry King Live , Nov. 2003) Dr.
> Grossmann is describing a wound that extended into the back of the
> head. Dr. Grossmann *also* describes a smaller wound about the size of
> a quarter.
>=20
>> That's the part Parkland saw ... Parkland was not able to see the
>> wound on what is the side of the head ... ala the flap that we see
>> open up in the Z-film as that flap was apparently closed by Jackie on
>> the way to the hospital.
>=20
> Ok. I hear Dr. Grossmann was in the limo, and told her what to do!
>=20
>=20
>> The right rear behind the ear IS the back of the head.
>=20
> No dispute there. That is the area Dr. Grossmann is referring to when
> he describes "a large separate wound from the temple wound in the
> BOH."
>=20
> And, according
>> to the autopsists, that area was part of the overall great defect
>> whick extended 10cm lateral right from the eop.=20
>=20
> Yup.
>=20
>> At the beginning of the autopsy, when they reflected the scalp
>=20
> Before they reflected back the scalp, there had to be a hole in the
> scalp where the bullet entered, correct? Perhaps that small wound in
> the scalp is what Dr. Grossmann saw when he wasn't observing Jackie
> out of the corner of his eye wearing a white dress! He also saw a
> larger BOH wound that was not the entrance wound.
>=20
> and
>> bone pieces fell out onto the table or remained stuck to the scalp,
>> they had one humongous hole .... they could see a "portion" of the
>> entry hole but the entire circumference of that entry hole was not
>> present ... they were able to fit a piece of bone back in later and
>> complete that entry hole, were also able to fit other bones pieces
>> back in and ultimately had a nice neat and complete entry hole and
>> what was left of the defect that they never had the bone to fill in,
>> in the top right of the skull.
>=20
> Ok
>=20
>> Grossman is the only one who reports seeing a separate entrance hole
>> .... or seeing the back of the head all the way over to the eop.
>=20
> He said the large hole was too big to be an entrance wound. He did see
> one smaller "entry" wound about the size of quarter. While he could
> see a "small wound" no one else could see a full size doctor named
> Grossmann at head of table with Dr. Kemp Clark!
>=20
SO, are you saying that the entrance wound was the size of a quarter? They
must have had smaller quarters back then, like 1.5 cm wide. Or are you
just making fun of Grossman's idea that any bullet entrance wound could be
the size of a quarter?
>> Others reported the head was turned for a better look, but not that
>> far ... not even by Kemp Clark, the chief of neurosurgery who took a
>> specific look at the wound. Clark was right at the gurney, a hands on
>> player. '
>=20
> Yup. Dr. Grossmann claims he was right there with Kemp.
>=20
>> At best, according to the documentation, Grossman *may* have been in
>> the room. His reporting of all his activities and claims of what he
>> saw, are latter day.
>=20
> False memory syndrome? And such a qualified fellow! Who are we to
> believe?=20
>=20
>> No one mentions him being in TR1 in their WC testimony ....
>=20
> Oh my! Dr. Grossmann is creating his participation out of thin air?
>=20
>> Salyer
>> testified to thinking he saw Grossman arrivingr with Kemp Clark
>=20
> Whew.
>=20
>> but
>> wasn't sure Grossman ever entered the room.
>=20
> Uh oh ~~
>=20
>=20
>> Even Kemp Clark,
>> Grossman's superior, didn't name Grossman as being in TR1,
>=20
> Was he asked specifically about Dr. G?
>=20
>> I understand Grossman is just a sweetheart of a man, but I would tread
>> very carefully in using him for anything that went on in TR1 .... as
>> there just is zero documentation he was ever in the room.
>=20
> Salyer? Not really, eh? Dr. Grossmann has a face mask on! hehe
>=20
>> Here's an article I helped David Lifton with one wild and crazy
>> weekend a few years ago ... when news of Grossman's
>> article/participation broke.=20
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm
>=20
>=20
> With David Lifton? =20
>=20
> Mmmm .... you don't believe in body alteration, do you Barb?
>=20
> Now the interview with Dr. Grossmann in the Boston Globe was not 40
> years after the event. Did he ever publish a book as David hints at in
> the article? It's too bad the interview with Dr. Grossmann in 1990
> was not rescheduled. 15 seconds is a reasonable length of time to
> remember something. Look at all the people who remember shots that
> occurred in even less time! It's no big deal if he didn't remember if
> it was a table or stretcher or the orientation. He describes the entry
> wound as "near the EOP=97centerline, or perhaps just right of center.=94
> Where is the diagram he drew? So he didn't see JFK placed in coffin
> ... not important imo. White dress? So he confused the colour of the
> dress ... not important imo. And so what if he saw her in Houston in a
> white dress? This statement applies to ALL the witnesses: "The
> inaccuracy of his recollection probably says little about the quality
> of the doctor=92s memory, but it is revealing of how the memory works
> and how cautious one must be when attempting to evaluate eyewitness
> testimony." (ARRB Final report, p. 123)
>=20
> Lots of folks said they "didn=92t get a very good look, ... [and] reall=
y
> hadn=92t seen very much." I see nothing unusual about him wanting to
> see photos at Archives. Heck, Chad did too! You can remember the
> wounds "distinctly" yet not have a long look. I would imagine a "very
> good look" would involve more time.
>=20
> Carrico said: "I don=92t recall right offhand anyone else. There were
> other doctors in there. I just can=92t specifically remember ...."
>=20
> "They" worked on the President is not really an unusual expression, is
> it? Didn't Jackie say: "I want them to see what they have done?"
>=20
> Has anyone placed Dr. Grossmann at some other location at Parkland at
> the time he claims to have been "in the room"?
>=20
> I know, I know .... I am being a devil's advocate. Surely I am naive
> and silly and simply refusing to allow the truth to seep into my
> porous cranium.
>=20
> Where art thou Dr. Grossmann?
>=20
>=20
> PF
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>>>
>>>> Barb :-)
>>> PF
>>>
>>>>>> Once they had replaced what bone they could, including the piece o=
f
>>>>>> bone that completed the entry hole, *then* they had an entry wound=
and
>>>>>> what was left of the wound ... they estimated they were able to fi=
ll
>>>>>> in all but about 1/4 of that defect void with bone pieces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In their autopsy report, they reported the bottom line ... an entr=
y
>>>>>> hole and the rest of the wound .... that told the story of where t=
he
>>>>>> bullet went in, and the area where it could be identified that bul=
let
>>>>>> (or pieces thereof) had actually struck bone on the way out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of that changes the ONE large overall void they had at the
>>>>>> beginning of the autopsy, once they got the scalp reflected. And t=
hat
>>>>>> is the defect they measured and drew on their autopsy papers. So i=
n
>>>>>> their report, they noted the location and size of the entry and th=
e
>>>>>> size of the hole once they had put bone in that separated that ent=
ry
>>>>>> from the rest of the hole ... then they merely commented on the
>>>>>> overall areas/bones that the overall defect had included. That was
>>>>>> chiefly parietal bone ... a great deal of which is on the back sid=
e of
>>>>>> the head as well as on the top, temporal bone, and occipital bone.
>>>>>> As you can plainly see from the skull link I provided a couple of
>>>>>> posts ago, temporal, parietal and occipital bone meet up behind th=
e
>>>>>> ear .... an area where Hill and Parkland reported seeing a wound, =
and
>>>>>> an area included in the 10cm wide measurement (from eop over 10cm
>>>>>> toward the right) made and drawn at autopsy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "I'm not saying they were in on any conspiracy, David, but, IM=
O, they certainly "towed the line", if they didn't spin the report safely=
away from any conspiracy conclusions...even though they knew there were =
only two bullets that hit JFK and that they were fired from the rear. The=
y just couldn't take a chance that their reporting the wounds precisely a=
s they were wouldn't be misinterpreted...the stakes were too high....IMHO=
." <<<
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You could be right, and I could be wrong. I've admitted that in t=
he
>>>>>>> past as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I just cannot see all 3 doctors holding back on that BOH info=
.
>>>>>>> Mainly because there just wasn't any valid enough REASON to hold =
back
>>>>>>> such info. None. (IMO, again.)
>>>>>> They didn't hold back on it, they just didn't lay out in their rep=
ort
>>>>>> the complete cycle of what they had at the beginning and what they
>>>>>> ended up with after replacing bone. They DID note the bones involv=
ed
>>>>>> in the overall defect ... and that 10cm wide measurement tells us =
just
>>>>>> how much was missing from the eop over toward the ear. Measure 10c=
m
>>>>>> over from your eop. How much of the area between your eop and your=
ear
>>>>>> does that cover? Most of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Barb :-)
>>>>>>> And if it was discovered that they held back information about th=
e
>>>>>>> true nature of JFK's wounds....they'd be branded liars forever, a=
nd
>>>>>>> there would be a good chance that nobody would trust ANYTHING the=
y
>>>>>>> said about the autopsy, forever furthering the notion that a
>>>>>>> conspiracy had ended JFK's life in Dallas (which is just exactly =
the
>>>>>>> kind of rumor they were trying to keep from spreading, per your
>>>>>>> possible scenario).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Would they want to take that risk, even though they could easily
>>>>>>> explain, per your scenario of events, the reasons why such a BOH =
wound
>>>>>>> was present in JFK's head (i.e., his head simply fell apart like =
an
>>>>>>> eggshell after the one bullet struck him FROM BEHIND)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, perhaps they would take such a risk, and not report the who=
le
>>>>>>> story. But I'll remain dubious about it for now.
>>>>>>>
>=20
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Burkley was THERE!!!!!!" <<<
>
>
> Sure. You're correct. Burkley was at both places (Parkland &
> Bethesda). But did he know about the bullet hole in the throat when he
> arrived at Parkland?
>
> I can't find any documentation that verifies that Dr. Burkley KNEW
> that a bullet hole had been obliterated by Perry's trach. Does such
> documentation exist? If so, please link it.
>
> This is from Burkley's 11/28/78 HSCA Affidavit:
>
> "I was with President Kennedy in Dallas. I arrived at the Parkland
> Hospital within five minutes of the President's arrival. I checked the
> President's physical condition, gave the doctors working with the
> President the blood type and some adrenal medication (Sol U Cortef) to
> place in the intravenous blood and fluids which were being
> administered. My findings clearly indicated that death was certain and
> imminent." -- G. Burkley
>
> If Burkley never saw the bullet hole in JFK's throat, he was in the
> very same dark boat as nearly everyone else in Trauma Room One. IOW,
> he couldn't have known about the bullet hole unless someone who saw it
> told him it was there.
>
>
Excellent point.
>>>> "And they would have called whom -- on their crystal ball cell phones?" <<<
>
>
> No...just pick up a phone (non-cellular variety would due very nicely)
> and CALL WASHINGTON. Tell SOMEBODY at the White House. Or tell
> somebody...SOMEWHERE, to make sure the word gets through to those who
> would need to know at the autopsy. (And the TV press conference was
> obviously not good enough. Nor should Perry have thought it would be
> good enough to make sure the autopsists knew of this important
> information. IMO, that is.)
>
>
It was not his job to tell the autopsy doctors what to do. Just let them
do their job.
Anthony Marsh
Please post the photo as you think it should be oriented and explain
why. Should a photo be oriented as the camera was situated or as the
person was situated?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "What do you mean by upside down? Post a photo showing how he {Baden}
> had it {F8} on the easel and then how you think it should be." <<<
>
>
> OK. Maybe he had it "sideways" or something. I don't know. But CTers
> always bark that Baden didn't have it oriented correctly...which is my
> whole trouble too...the orientation of that grotesque photo.
>
> I wouldn't have the slightest way of knowing what was "up" vs. "down" in
> that picture....even if somebody in authority assured me which was which.
> It's a total mess, and I've never been able to make head nor tail out of
> anything in that photograph.
>
What if the camera was upside down or sideways when it took the photo?
What you really need to do is understand what it shows.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, even Baden is able to see the semi-circular defect. John Canal is
the only person in this universe who can't.
The problem is that Baden lied about where that semi-circular defect
was. It was NOT on the coronal suture. It was on the frontal bone, as
noted by Dr. Lawrence Angel. And that produces a trajectory for a
fragment which must hit something BELOW Kennedy.
> "The fact that the largest fragment found of the president's skull was
> along the coronal suture, that this triangular fragment was one of
> three that, in the aggregate, lined up, on reconstruction, with the
> large defect to the right front of the president's skull, and that
> this large fragment of bone was beveled on its outer surface, rather
> than its inner surface, provide conclusive evidence of an exiting
> bullet to the right front of the president's head." -- Vincent T.
> Bugliosi; Pages 235-236 of Endnotes on the CD-ROM
>
Another of his many lies. External beveling is NOT conclusive evidence
of an exiting bullet.
> ============================
>
>
Gerry Simone (O)
Yes, I understand thank you.
The important thing is what they saw at the back of the head.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:um6o93hn1a38emfrv...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
I might agree, but a bullet can bounce off the inside surface of the
skull and change direction downward. And most of this discussion should
be about a fragment, not a whole bullet.
>
> Herbert
Anthony Marsh
Huh? This is a thread.
>
>>>> It just turned out to be incorrect given what was found
>>>> at autopsy, though there is that Rankin thing about more things from
>>>> the autopsy needing to be worked out in executive session Jan 27, 1964
>>>> ... a time when all supposition should/would have been over as the
>>>> autopsy report was supposedly final.
>>> By the "Rankin thing," would you be referring to the problem of the
>>> bullet that became elevated so that it raised rather than coming out
>>> at the sharp angle that it entered?
>> How does the bullet hit the back BELOW where a bullet exited the throat?
>
> Draw a diagram that shows the back wound "BELOW" the throat wound.
>
I am not an artist. Here is one famous example.
http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/MBULLET.jpg
> Herbert
Anthony Marsh
No. Severely fractured. Avulsive fractures. I just learned another concept
the other day while watching a special about asteroids. When an asteroid
hits the Earth it may produce effects on the opposite side of the Earth
due to what they called antipodal focusing. As I tried to explain to Randy
Robertson, but did not know this term, this is what happened when the
bullet impacted the front of the head. Shockwaves traveled to the back of
the head faster than the bullet causing the extensive fracturing which he
misinterpreted as intersecting fractures from two shots.
>
> PF
>
Anthony Marsh
I wasn't talking about Lifton's theory that all the shots came from the
front. Only a small handful of people still believe that, maybe not even
Lifton himself. I am talking about those who believe that a BOH wound
would indicate a shot came from the front. No one can have a theory that
there was only a BOH wound and no massive wound on the top of the head.
Two exit wounds means two shots to some people.
> That there was a large boh wound is not a theory, it's in the record
> from DP, from several hands on people at Parkland ... and from
> Bethesda.
>
Show me this large BOH wound on the autopsy photos then.
Barb Junkkarinen
<newdec...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's Mack truck :-)
I had that and changed it ... LOL!
>
>Yes, I understand thank you.
>
>The important thing is what they saw at the back of the head.
And that was a nasty hole.
Bests,
Barb Junkkarinen
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
I can't post it .... but John Canal probably will post it again if you
ask him. You may be able to find it on google in one of his posts.
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Am I Dr. Grossmann? No.
>They
>must have had smaller quarters back then, like 1.5 cm wide. Or are you
>just making fun of Grossman's idea that any bullet entrance wound could be
>the size of a quarter?
I am stating exactly what DR. GROSSMANN said.
PF
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
A bullet with sufficient speed to transit the soft tissue of
Connally's innards changed directions when it scooted along the curve
of the rib and made a turn to smash into Connally's wrist and then
thigh.
Granted there was no "rib" in JFK's brain, but Herb is correct to
point out that most of this discussion should be about a fragment(s)
spun off from the bullet as it smashed into the skull and proceeded
forward in deformed shape.
>
>>
>> Herbert
PF
Peter Fokes
My reply to your comments about Dr. Grossmann can also be found in a
recent post.
PF
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:45:36 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Wherein I magically raise Barb's arms and hands upward and make her
>shout: Pshawwwww!!!!
<g>??
Give it a few years and we'll see.<g> But then Grossman commented on
seeing a "temple wound" according to the quotes you provided ...
>
>
>>The right rear behind the ear IS the back of the head.
>
>No dispute there. That is the area Dr. Grossmann is referring to when
>he describes "a large separate wound from the temple wound in the
>BOH."
>
> And, according
>>to the autopsists, that area was part of the overall great defect
>>whick extended 10cm lateral right from the eop.
>
>Yup.
>
>>
>>At the beginning of the autopsy, when they reflected the scalp
>
>Before they reflected back the scalp, there had to be a hole in the
>scalp where the bullet entered, correct?
Yes.
>Perhaps that small wound in
>the scalp is what Dr. Grossmann saw
It measured 15 x 6 mm.
> when he wasn't observing Jackie
>out of the corner of his eye wearing a white dress!
LOL!
>He also saw a
>larger BOH wound that was not the entrance wound.
At least that one is possible ...
>
> and
>>bone pieces fell out onto the table or remained stuck to the scalp,
>>they had one humongous hole .... they could see a "portion" of the
>>entry hole but the entire circumference of that entry hole was not
>>present ... they were able to fit a piece of bone back in later and
>>complete that entry hole, were also able to fit other bones pieces
>>back in and ultimately had a nice neat and complete entry hole and
>>what was left of the defect that they never had the bone to fill in,
>>in the top right of the skull.
>
>Ok
>
>>
>>Grossman is the only one who reports seeing a separate entrance hole
>>.... or seeing the back of the head all the way over to the eop.
>
>He said the large hole was too big to be an entrance wound. He did see
>one smaller "entry" wound about the size of quarter. While he could
>see a "small wound" no one else could see a full size doctor named
>Grossmann at head of table with Dr. Kemp Clark!
Exactly! (Clark was not at the head of the table though)
>
>>Others reported the head was turned for a better look, but not that
>>far ... not even by Kemp Clark, the chief of neurosurgery who took a
>>specific look at the wound. Clark was right at the gurney, a hands on
>>player. '
>
>Yup. Dr. Grossmann claims he was right there with Kemp.
>
>>
>>At best, according to the documentation, Grossman *may* have been in
>>the room. His reporting of all his activities and claims of what he
>>saw, are latter day.
>
>False memory syndrome? And such a qualified fellow! Who are we to
>believe?
I kinda like going with the documentation myself ...
>
>>
>>No one mentions him being in TR1 in their WC testimony ....
>
>Oh my! Dr. Grossmann is creating his participation out of thin air?
Who am I to say? :-)
>
>> Salyer
>>testified to thinking he saw Grossman arrivingr with Kemp Clark
>
>Whew.
>
>> but
>>wasn't sure Grossman ever entered the room.
>
>Uh oh ~~
>
>
>> Even Kemp Clark,
>>Grossman's superior, didn't name Grossman as being in TR1,
>
>Was he asked specifically about Dr. G?
Why would he be?<g> They were all asked who else was in the room.
Clark didn't name Grossman in his WC testinony. Here's the pertinent
exchange:
QUOTE
Mr. SPECTER - And who was present, if anyone, upon your arrival,
attending to the President?
Dr. CLARK - Dr. Jenkins, that is M. T. Jenkins, I suppose I ought to
say, Dr. Ronald Jones, Dr. Malcolm Perry, Dr. James Carrico; arriving
either with me or immediately thereafter were Dr. Robert McClelland,
Dr. Paul Peters, and Dr. Charles Baxter.
END QUOTE
>
>>
>>I understand Grossman is just a sweetheart of a man, but I would tread
>>very carefully in using him for anything that went on in TR1 .... as
>>there just is zero documentation he was ever in the room.
>
>Salyer? Not really, eh? Dr. Grossmann has a face mask on! hehe
Or perhaps was the invisible man as he took front and ceneter cradling
JFK's head in his arms ... sigh...
>
>>Here's an article I helped David Lifton with one wild and crazy
>>weekend a few years ago ... when news of Grossman's
>>article/participation broke.
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/grossman.htm
>
>
>With David Lifton?
>
>Mmmm .... you don't believe in body alteration, do you Barb?
Don't see that mentioned anywhere in that article. :-)
Yup ... and I am merely taking it that way... for the documentation we
have on who was in the room and what happened in that room, from
several people's accounts, does not support Grossman's contentions.
That's about all I can say.
> Surely I am naive
>and silly and simply refusing to allow the truth to seep into my
>porous cranium.
Take a cleansing breath.<g>
>
>Where art thou Dr. Grossmann?
It's where he was that's in question ... and there's no documentation
that puts him even in the room, though, per Salyer, that is a
possibility. Wearing a red cape, tights and being center stage ... no.
Barb :-)
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
Is the Alteration of evidence a Felony?
<rwa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1184698463.7...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Why do you need a bullet to scoot along the curve of the rib? Why do no
SBT drawings show this curved path? None.
> Granted there was no "rib" in JFK's brain, but Herb is correct to
> point out that most of this discussion should be about a fragment(s)
> spun off from the bullet as it smashed into the skull and proceeded
> forward in deformed shape.
>
Well, the principle I am talking about comes from real life cases. A
suicide where they find the entrance wound but no exit wound. Where did
the bullet go? When they probe the wound in the brain it goes from right
to left and there is a hole on the right side of the brain. But the
bullet did not exit. It ricocheted off the inside of the skull and down.
>>> Herbert
>
> PF
Anthony Marsh
My question is whether you believe him or whether you are making fun of him.
Anthony Marsh
SO, are you stipulating that Dr. Angel's notations are correct?
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Peter Fokes wrote:
>>
>> I am stating exactly what DR. GROSSMANN said.
>>
>
>My question is whether you believe him or whether you are making fun of him.
Well, that is a different question. If that's the question you meant
to ask, then you should have asked it the first time.
When contradictory evidence is presented along with Dr. Grossmann's
recollections, one cannot help but draw a deep breath of astonishment.
PF
Anthony Marsh
> On 18 Jul 2007 22:42:12 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Fokes wrote:
>
>>> I am stating exactly what DR. GROSSMANN said.
>>>
>> My question is whether you believe him or whether you are making fun of him.
>
> Well, that is a different question. If that's the question you meant
> to ask, then you should have asked it the first time.
>
> When contradictory evidence is presented along with Dr. Grossmann's
> recollections, one cannot help but draw a deep breath of astonishment.
>
> PF
>
Non-answer. Please answer my question. What do you believe?
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>So Barb, it appears you agree with Dr. Grossmann who believed the
>>>>wound on the right side of the head extended into the back of the
>>>>head. Didn't he say that wound on the BOH was "too big" to be an
>>>>entrance wound? He also believed there was a smaller entry wound on
>>>>the BOH but that is a different matter.
>>>The wound I've been talking about, Peter, is the BOH wound ... it was
>>>noted as being in the right rear of the head ... behind the ear.
Yup. But Dr. Grossmann -- besides seeing that wound -- also saw a
smaller wound. He claims he saw "two" wounds on the BOH.
>>Yes. I understand. That's why I asked. Dr. Grossmann also believed the
>>wound extended to the BOH ... behind the ear. He said "Kennedy had a
>>large wound separate from the temple wound in the BOH -- much too
>>large to be an entrance wound." (Boston Globe, 1981) On the Larry King
>>show in 2003 he said: "He had very thick bristly hair, and when you
>>parted the hair you could see that the right posterior part of the
>>head ... was simply blasted out." (Larry King Live , Nov. 2003) Dr.
>>Grossmann is describing a wound that extended into the back of the
>>head. Dr. Grossmann *also* describes a smaller wound about the size of
>>a quarter.
>>>That's the part Parkland saw ... Parkland was not able to see the
>>>wound on what is the side of the head ... ala the flap that we see
>>>open up in the Z-film as that flap was apparently closed by Jackie on
>>>the way to the hospital.
Then, if Dr. Grossmann did see a large wound, it had to be at the BOH.
He also claims he saw a smaller entry wound on BOH.
>>Ok. I hear Dr. Grossmann was in the limo, and told her what to do!
>
>Give it a few years and we'll see.<g> But then Grossman commented on
>seeing a "temple wound" according to the quotes you provided ...
Yes, a temple wound that extended to the back of the head. Are you
saying no witness noticed anything unusual about the right side of
JFK's head at Parkland?
>>>The right rear behind the ear IS the back of the head.
>>No dispute there. That is the area Dr. Grossmann is referring to when
>>he describes "a large separate wound from the temple wound in the
>>BOH."
>> And, according
>>>to the autopsists, that area was part of the overall great defect
>>>whick extended 10cm lateral right from the eop.
>>
>>Yup.
>>
>>>
>>>At the beginning of the autopsy, when they reflected the scalp
>>
>>Before they reflected back the scalp, there had to be a hole in the
>>scalp where the bullet entered, correct?
>
>Yes.
>
>>Perhaps that small wound in
>>the scalp is what Dr. Grossmann saw
>
>It measured 15 x 6 mm.
No. Not the smaller wound, Dr. Grossmann claims there were two wounds
on the BOH. A larger wound and a smaller wound. You have provided the
measurement for the larger wound, not the small wound.
PF
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:30:26 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>So Barb, it appears you agree with Dr. Grossmann who believed the
>>>>>wound on the right side of the head extended into the back of the
>>>>>head. Didn't he say that wound on the BOH was "too big" to be an
>>>>>entrance wound? He also believed there was a smaller entry wound on
>>>>>the BOH but that is a different matter.
>
>
>>>>The wound I've been talking about, Peter, is the BOH wound ... it was
>>>>noted as being in the right rear of the head ... behind the ear.
>
>
>Yup. But Dr. Grossmann -- besides seeing that wound -- also saw a
>smaller wound. He claims he saw "two" wounds on the BOH.
I know. You know I know. You keep repeating this even though you seem
to understand that there's a problem with whether or not he was ever
in a position/situation to have seen much of anything.
Is your needle stuck? <g>
>
>>>Yes. I understand. That's why I asked. Dr. Grossmann also believed the
>>>wound extended to the BOH ... behind the ear. He said "Kennedy had a
>>>large wound separate from the temple wound in the BOH -- much too
>>>large to be an entrance wound." (Boston Globe, 1981) On the Larry King
>>>show in 2003 he said: "He had very thick bristly hair, and when you
>>>parted the hair you could see that the right posterior part of the
>>>head ... was simply blasted out." (Larry King Live , Nov. 2003) Dr.
>>>Grossmann is describing a wound that extended into the back of the
>>>head. Dr. Grossmann *also* describes a smaller wound about the size of
>>>a quarter.
>
>>>>That's the part Parkland saw ... Parkland was not able to see the
>>>>wound on what is the side of the head ... ala the flap that we see
>>>>open up in the Z-film as that flap was apparently closed by Jackie on
>>>>the way to the hospital.
>
>Then, if Dr. Grossmann did see a large wound, it had to be at the BOH.
>He also claims he saw a smaller entry wound on BOH.
>
>>>Ok. I hear Dr. Grossmann was in the limo, and told her what to do!
>>
>>Give it a few years and we'll see.<g> But then Grossman commented on
>>seeing a "temple wound" according to the quotes you provided ...
>
>Yes, a temple wound that extended to the back of the head. Are you
>saying no witness noticed anything unusual about the right side of
>JFK's head at Parkland?
Not much save for blood and gore. You've read all their
statements/testimonies, right? One mentioned a temple wound and
dyslexed it to the ledt side rather than the right side, but overall,
no, it's clear Parkland did not see/note/appreciate the wound where
the trap door was on the right side of his head.
>
>
>>>>The right rear behind the ear IS the back of the head.
>
>>>No dispute there. That is the area Dr. Grossmann is referring to when
>>>he describes "a large separate wound from the temple wound in the
>>>BOH."
>
>>> And, according
>>>>to the autopsists, that area was part of the overall great defect
>>>>whick extended 10cm lateral right from the eop.
>>>
>>>Yup.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>At the beginning of the autopsy, when they reflected the scalp
>>>
>>>Before they reflected back the scalp, there had to be a hole in the
>>>scalp where the bullet entered, correct?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>>Perhaps that small wound in
>>>the scalp is what Dr. Grossmann saw
>>
>>It measured 15 x 6 mm.
>
>No. Not the smaller wound, Dr. Grossmann claims there were two wounds
>on the BOH. A larger wound and a smaller wound. You have provided the
>measurement for the larger wound, not the small wound.
"mm" Peter .... not *cm* .... the size of the entry wound in the scalp
was 15x6 millimeters (mm).
(Note no one has ever argued that wound was caused by a tumbling
bullet that had already hit something else like they do Connally's
back wound! HA!)
Barb :-)
>
>PF
Herbert Blenner
wrote:
The entry wounds on Kennedy's head and Connally's back were both
elliptical. So do those who argue that a tumbling bullet caused the wound
on Connally's back get a double HA, HA?
Herbert
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
That was my point. :-)
>So do those who argue that a tumbling bullet caused the wound
>on Connally's back get a double HA, HA?
They should if they insis (as most of them here argue and I believe
Bugs did the same thing) that *only* a bullet tumbling from having hit
something first could cause an elliptical wound.
Anymore, I mostly just shake my head at those types though ... sigh.
Barb :-)
>
>Herbert
bigdog
wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2007 21:25:43 -0400, Herbert Blenner <a1ea...@aol.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
An elliptical wound could also be cause by an angled entry wound but in
the case of Connally, the position of the exit wound eliminates that
possibility unless you believe in magic bullets. Is there another possible
explaination for the shape of the entrance wound?
Barb Junkkarinen
How ... why?
Barb :-)
Herbert Blenner
The contradictory contents of the medical reports on the description and
treatment of Governor Connally's torso wounds elevates doctoring of the
report from a possibility to a necessity.
Doctor Shaw reported making an angled incision to the side of the
elliptical back wound, inserting a Penrose drain beneath the wound track
and felling the drain before closing the small tunneling hole in
latissimus dorsi muscle. These medical details require a highly tangential
entry and a small wound track beneath the skin. So the case for "an angled
entry" producing a large elliptical surface wound rests on the medical
treatment of the small tunneling track beneath the skin, fat and muscle of
Connally's back.
However, the reported direction of the bullet during and shortly after
entry is totally inconsistent with the subsequent motion along the rib
cage and exit below Connally's right nipple.
Needless to say, Mr. Arlene Specter did not raise any of these
inconsistencies with Shaw. Instead, Specter ignored the "angled" track and
the elliptical surface wound. He established that a bullet with yaw could
make a wound with a dimension of fifteen millimeters. But a bullet with
yaw makes a linear surface wound and a subsurface wound track of
comparable size. The shapes of these wounds resemble a rectangle with
rounded corners.
Herbert
Peter Fokes
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes.
I'm not sure ... to tell you the truth. But I'll take your word for
it.
One mentioned a temple wound and
>dyslexed it to the ledt side rather than the right side, but overall,
>no, it's clear Parkland did not see/note/appreciate the wound where
>the trap door was on the right side of his head.
>>
>>
>>>>>The right rear behind the ear IS the back of the head.
>>
>>>>No dispute there. That is the area Dr. Grossmann is referring to when
>>>>he describes "a large separate wound from the temple wound in the
>>>>BOH."
>>
>>>> And, according
>>>>>to the autopsists, that area was part of the overall great defect
>>>>>whick extended 10cm lateral right from the eop.
>>>>
>>>>Yup.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>At the beginning of the autopsy, when they reflected the scalp
>>>>
>>>>Before they reflected back the scalp, there had to be a hole in the
>>>>scalp where the bullet entered, correct?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>>Perhaps that small wound in
>>>>the scalp is what Dr. Grossmann saw
>>>
>>>It measured 15 x 6 mm.
>>
>>No. Not the smaller wound, Dr. Grossmann claims there were two wounds
>>on the BOH. A larger wound and a smaller wound. You have provided the
>>measurement for the larger wound, not the small wound.
>
>"mm" Peter .... not *cm* .... the size of the entry wound in the scalp
>was 15x6 millimeters (mm).
I'd swear I saw a "c" there ... oh well! That would be a mighty big
small wound if it was cm :-)
>
>(Note no one has ever argued that wound was caused by a tumbling
>bullet that had already hit something else like they do Connally's
>back wound! HA!)
>
>Barb :-)
True.
>>
>>PF
bigdog
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The bullet entered JBC's back under his right armpit and exited under
his right nipple. Draw a straight line through those wounds and you do
not get a shallow enough angle of entrance to cause the elliptical
wound the length of the entry wound on his back. To make a wound of
that length, the bullet would have to have been fired almost from the
side of JBC and slightly behind him. That would require the bullet to
make almost a 90 degree turn to exit from under his right nipple.
Herbert Blenner
Your straight line connecting the entry and exit wounds only
represents the trajectory of the bullet when it transits without net
defection. This circumstance circumvents a single bullet event.
> To make a wound of
> that length, the bullet would have to have been fired almost from the
> side of JBC and slightly behind him. That would require the bullet to
> make almost a 90 degree turn to exit from under his right nipple.
A bullet with an incidence angle of almost 90 degree makes a hole of
almost infinite length. The reported longer dimension of 15 mm fails far
short of almost infinite.
If a questioner asked Dr. Shaw what were the dimensions of the bullet hole
in Connally's back then we could accurately calculate the incidence angle.
If they asked what were the angle between the longer axis of the hole an
anatomical direction then we could calculate the azimuthal angle of the
entering bullet. Instead of having the relevant forensic information we
can merely estimate the incidence angle as 45 to 60 degree. Contradictory
documentation on the anatomical orientation of longer axis of the wound
prevents us from saying anything about the azimuthal angle.
Herbert
pjsp...@aol.com
online book that discusses the medical evidence in far more detail than
you will find elsewhere. In chapters 13 and 14, I discuss F8 and unravel
its supposed mysteries.
As far as Dr. Baden testifying with his exhibit upside down, that was
something I discovered. It is demonstrated in part 1 of my video series.
As far as the back of the head wound...there has been a movement of sorts
to try and reconcile the Parkland witnesses with the autopsy report and
autopsy photos. I've thought about this quite a bit and it doesn't work.
The autopsy report makes no mention of a scalp laceration at the back of
the head. Dr. Clark discussed an actual absence of scalp over the large
head wound. So there is no way there was scalp flap that was open in
Dallas but closed in Bethesda. Similarly, the autopsy report notes an
actual absence of scalp in the large defect. The autopsy photos show this
to be at the top of the head. Consequently, there is NO way Dr. Clark
wound not have noticed this wound in Dallas.
Unless one is to believe that one or both sets of doctors were lying, the
logical conclusion is that Clark and the autopsy doctors were discussing
the same wound. This might mean that the Parkland doctors told the truth,
but that the autopsy doctors lied. If there weren't a third set of
witnesses, those who saw the headshot and noted the location of the wound.
In this category we have William Newman and Abraham Zapruder, both of whom
saw the wound exactly where it was photographic at autopsy. This
indicates that the Parkland witnesses were mistaken and incorrectly
recollected the wound's location in their memories. .When one considers
that they mostly viewed Kennedy when he was on his back in the
Trendelenburg position, and that this placed the top of his head in the
space normally occupied by the back of his head, this isn't so hard to
understand.
Barb Junkkarinen
Hiya,
Draw a straight line" You can't assume a linear trajectory ... adn in
JBC's case with that round the rib cage thing we know happened, we
know there was no linear trajectory.
Barb :-)
>
Anthony Marsh
> FWIW, At patspeer.com, I have three videos on the medical evidence, and an
> online book that discusses the medical evidence in far more detail than
> you will find elsewhere. In chapters 13 and 14, I discuss F8 and unravel
> its supposed mysteries.
>
> As far as Dr. Baden testifying with his exhibit upside down, that was
> something I discovered. It is demonstrated in part 1 of my video series.
>
Explain what you mean by upside down and show us what you think is the
correct orientation.