Question for P. Speer
John Canal
1. a slight fracture to be seen on the neck x-rays of the transverse
process of T1.
2. tiny bone fragments to be seen on the neck x-rays in the area of the
right side of C7.
3. air to be seen on the neck x-rays on a line in the tissues through the
neck.
4. the apex of the pleura to be bruised.
5. the apex of the right lung to be bruised.
6. two slits in the shirt behind the necktie knot.
7. a nick in the necktie.
and
8. a bullet wound in he throat.
soooooo, if it wasn't the bullet that caused the bullet wound seen in the
back wound photos that caused all that (see 1 - 8 above), what did cause
that damage?
Oh shucks--I just thought of something--if my memory serves, you theorize
that the near-EOP entering bullet came out his throat...right? If I've got
you mixed up with another CT on that wacky theory, I humbly apologize and
would ask you to ignore my second question.
John Canal
If my memory wasn't failing me I've got one more question. How did the
bullet get from near the EOP to the throat without destroying the
cerebellum and making a hole in the base of the skull?
pjspeare
Lattimer, and Sturdivan believed to be a wound track, begins well
above the bullet entrance which the HSCA FPP determined to be at T1.
For this, and many other reasons, I concluded that the bullet entering
near the EOP descended in Kennedy's neck, and exited his throat.
http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg/chestxray-full.jpg
Upon close examination of the chest/neck x-ray, one notes a black spot
(representing air in the tissues) at the approximate level of the
exit, at approximately the midline of the throat. This would appear
to be the exit. Surprisingly, however, the black line which one would
have to presume represents the bullet path, can be traced backwards up
the neck, to a point much higher than the purported entrance in the
President’s back. That the HSCA forensic pathology panel attached no
importance to this “interstitial emphysema” (air in the tissues), even
though one of its consultants, Dr. Seaman, considered it “highly
suspicious compared with the other side,” whilst simultaneously
embracing a bullet path between the hole in the back and the hole in
the neck, which tore no muscles and broke no bones, yet could not be
probed by the autopsy doctors, is mysterious, if not disturbing. That
their projected path through the neck starting at the back entrance
more than an inch and a half to the right of the President’s mid-line
and ending at their proposed exit in the throat slightly to the left
of the President’s mid-line blasted right through Kennedy’s spine,
while they claimed the bullet never touched a bone, makes their
actions doubly mysterious, or disturbing. They simply refused to
follow the evidence. Or make sense.
While I initially had doubts that a wound track could be so obvious, I
found a few people who seem to agree with me that this is a wound
track. People who have seen a few wound tracks. Amazingly, the Clark
Panel report, when discussing the back wound and the throat wound,
declares: “There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as
indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on
the x-rays…” Well, I’ll be! Perhaps this is the key to the Clark
Panel’s mis-representing the vertical distance between the two wounds—
while they could see that the bullet came down the neck, they just
couldn’t fathom that it was coming from anywhere but the back wound.
If someone were to coin the expression “assassination research makes
strange bedfellows,” this would be a perfect example.
Yet another who believes the shadows are a wound track is Larry
Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert. In his book, The JFK Myths,
Strdivan declares “The x-rays show a faint, but perceptible, shadow of
a wound track running from the entry location shown in the autopsy
photos to the exit point at the suprasternal notch.” Since Sturdivan
adds “The entry was located just above the transverse process of the
first thoracic vertebra” however, it’s clear he’s trying to have it
both ways, using an entrance slightly higher than the HSCA’s entrance
location and insisting that the exit in the throat was not higher than
the back wound, as claimed by the HSCA, but lower. Since the shadows
on the x-ray begin much higher than T-1, however, we should reject
Sturdivan’s conclusion. Moreover, I find it interesting that
Sturdivan would call his book The JFK Myths, and claim it debunks the
theories of the conspiracy community, and then submit that the HSCA
had the entry location of the head wound, the exit location of the
head wound, and the entrance location of the back wound incorrect.
Perhaps he meant for his title to cut both ways. More to the point,
since it seems clear that Sturdivan is deliberately disregarding the
wound locations of the forensic pathology panel in his work, the
question must be asked: why is it considered unpatriotic,
unscientific, or anti-American to question the specific conclusions of
the government’s panels when that leads you to conclude Kennedy was
killed by a conspiracy, when it’s not considered unpatriotic,
unscientific or anti-American to question their conclusions if you say
Oswald acted alone? This double-standard, I believe, says a lot about
why this case is still relevant.
John Canal
pjspeare says...
>Canal, the "air in the tissues" which many, including the Clark Panel,
>Lattimer, and Sturdivan believed to be a wound track,
Really, "Speer"? What's your citation for the wound track indicated by the air
in the tissues being above the back wound to throat wound tarck?......it's not
PATSEER.COM, is it?
Here's Lattimer: "There were tiny traces of air, visible in the X-rays, in the
tissues along the bullet track, near the hole in the
trachea." He then shows where that air was in his diagram and it's not above the
back wound to throat wound track. He may not have been a forensic pathologist,
but he was a combat surgeon during WWII ands sure as hell was able to read
X-rays. Moreover he examined the originals...which you'll never do.
Also, the HSCA's McDonnell wrote, "there was air in the soft tissues of the
right supraclavicular air" If this air had been above, and not associated with,
the back wound to throat wound track don't you think he would have mentioned
that little tidbit?
>begins well
>above the bullet entrance which the HSCA FPP determined to be at T1.
Citation, other than Patspeer.com, please.
>For this, and many other reasons, I concluded that the bullet entering
>near the EOP descended in Kennedy's neck, and exited his throat.
That's even more wacky than the "Greer-did-it" theory. What about the bone that
forms the base of the skull---did they miss seeing a hole in that bone?....or do
you think your bullet went through the Foramen Magnum? If the latter, you better
look again at your anatomy books...because that process doen't come close to
lining up with a near-EOP to trachea track. And again, the cerebellum would have
been blasted apart if the bullet tracked like that...that is one wacky theory.
>http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg/chestxray-full.jpg
>
>Upon close examination of the chest/neck x-ray, one notes a black spot
>(representing air in the tissues) at the approximate level of the
>exit, at approximately the midline of the throat. This would appear
>to be the exit. Surprisingly, however, the black line which one would
>have to presume represents the bullet path, can be traced backwards up
>the neck, to a point much higher than the purported entrance in the
>President=92s back. That the HSCA forensic pathology panel attached no
>importance to this =93interstitial emphysema=94 (air in the tissues), even
>though one of its consultants, Dr. Seaman, considered it =93highly
>suspicious compared with the other side,=94 whilst simultaneously
>embracing a bullet path between the hole in the back and the hole in
>the neck, which tore no muscles and broke no bones, yet could not be
>probed by the autopsy doctors, is mysterious, if not disturbing. That
>their projected path through the neck starting at the back entrance
>more than an inch and a half to the right of the President=92s mid-line
>and ending at their proposed exit in the throat slightly to the left
>of the President=92s mid-line blasted right through Kennedy=92s spine,
>while they claimed the bullet never touched a bone, makes their
>actions doubly mysterious, or disturbing. They simply refused to
>follow the evidence. Or make sense.
Citation for the above theory is what---Forensic Pathologist wannabe, Pat Speer?
>While I initially had doubts that a wound track could be so obvious,
I should surely hope so.
>I
>found a few people who seem to agree with me that this is a wound
>track. People who have seen a few wound tracks.
Any of them examine the originals?
>Amazingly, the Clark
>Panel report, when discussing the back wound and the throat wound,
>declares: =93There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as
>indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on
>the x-rays=85=94 Well, I=92ll be! Perhaps this is the key to the Clark
>Panel=92s mis-representing the vertical distance between the two wounds=97
>while they could see that the bullet came down the neck,
Oh, they saw that track, eh? But just couldn't believe what they were seeing?
How about no hole in the base of the skull or a demolished cerebellum (for
starters)...ya think those two clues tended to keep them from saying the bullet
came down the neck?
>they just
>couldn=92t fathom that it was coming from anywhere but the back wound.
>If someone were to coin the expression =93assassination research makes
>strange bedfellows,=94 this would be a perfect example.
>
>Yet another who believes the shadows are a wound track is Larry
>Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert. In his book, The JFK Myths,
>Strdivan declares =93The x-rays show a faint, but perceptible, shadow of
>a wound track running from the entry location shown in the autopsy
>photos to the exit point at the suprasternal notch.=94 Since Sturdivan
>adds =93The entry was located just above the transverse process of the
>first thoracic vertebra=94 however, it=92s clear he=92s trying to have it
>both ways, using an entrance slightly higher than the HSCA=92s entrance
>location and insisting that the exit in the throat was not higher than
>the back wound, as claimed by the HSCA, but lower. Since the shadows
>on the x-ray begin much higher than T-1, however, we should reject
>Sturdivan=92s conclusion. Moreover, I find it interesting that
>Sturdivan would call his book The JFK Myths, and claim it debunks the
>theories of the conspiracy community, and then submit that the HSCA
>had the entry location of the head wound, the exit location of the
>head wound, and the entrance location of the back wound incorrect.
>Perhaps he meant for his title to cut both ways. More to the point,
>since it seems clear that Sturdivan is deliberately disregarding the
>wound locations of the forensic pathology panel in his work, the
>question must be asked: why is it considered unpatriotic,
>unscientific, or anti-American to question the specific conclusions of
>the government=92s panels when that leads you to conclude Kennedy was
>killed by a conspiracy, when it=92s not considered unpatriotic,
>unscientific or anti-American to question their conclusions if you say
>Oswald acted alone? This double-standard, I believe, says a lot about
>why this case is still relevant.
But these guys have seen the originals, which you'll never do, and their
qualifications dwarf yours....and, again, tell me what happened to the
devastation of the cerebellum and hole in the base of the skull that would have
been there had the bullet tracked down the neck to the trachea from near the
EOP!!!!
IMO, because you've spent, what about 10 years, putting your theories on your
website, you wouldn't be able to change them now, even if you knew they were
wrong....you just don't have another 10 years to spend correcting them.
John Canal
>On Jul 8, 7:06=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Something caused:
>>
>> 1. a slight fracture to be seen on the neck x-rays of the transverse
>> process of T1.
>>
>> 2. tiny bone fragments to be seen on the neck x-rays in the area of the
>> right side of C7.
>>
>> 3. air to be seen on the neck x-rays on a line in the tissues through the
>> neck.
>>
>> 4. the apex of the pleura to be bruised.
>>
>> 5. the apex of the right lung to be bruised.
>>
>> 6. two slits in the shirt behind the necktie knot.
>>
>> 7. a nick in the necktie.
>>
>> and
>>
>> 8. a bullet wound in he throat.
>>
>> soooooo, if it wasn't the bullet that caused the bullet wound seen in the
>> back wound photos that caused all that (see 1 - 8 above), what did cause
>> that damage?
>>
>> Oh shucks--I just thought of something--if my memory serves, you theorize
>> that the near-EOP entering bullet came out his throat...right? If I've go=
pjspeare
Clark Panel, Lattimer, and Sturdivan all claimed a bullet track descended
within the neck to this level. The Clark Panel and Lattimer felt the back
wound was far above the throat wound, and that this bullet track was
inches long. Problemita. The HSCA FPP determined the back wound was also
at T1. They even said it was slightly BELOW the throat wound. And the
autopsy photos bear this out.
So...either the bullet track observed by The Clark Panel, Lattimer, and
Sturdivan came from somewhere other than the back wound, or the HSCA FPP's
analysis of the back wound location is grossly mistaken. Which is it?
And...if you decide to swallow the LN poison pill and pretend the back
wound was really up at C5/C6, and that the Rydberg drawings were accurate,
would you please tell us why the HSCA FPP--which you believe to have been
in the tank for the Clark Panel--decided the back wound was much lower, so
low in fact that the only way for the HSCA to save the SBT was to hire a
NASA hack to move the back wound back up for the trajectory analysis!
http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg/ThePortableHole-full;init:.jpg
On Jul 10, 9:33 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <a3a53a0f-60cc-436d-9ad6-88199c9c0...@d4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
John Canal
pjspeare says...
<TOP POST>
The key point is that there is a unambiguous photograph of the back wound
and there is only one wound there. Similarly, there's an unambiguous
photograph of the throat wound....and there is only one there. In between
those wounds, in the supraclavicular area, we know there was a fracture of
the transverse process at T1, debris in the area of C7, bruising of the
apex of the right plueura and lung, air in the tissues, slits in the shirt
color, and a nick in the tie. The track is so obvious a ten year old could
figure it out....quit trying to divert attention from your silly theory by
exploiting academic arguments about precisely where each of those points
of damage was anatomically.
Get back to your alternative track and answer my questions please:
1). Do you think they missed seeing a hole in the bone that forms the base
of the skull that your bullet from near the EOP would have made on its way
to the trachea?
2) Do you think they switched brains or something?....because the damage
to the cerebellum that we can see in the drawings doesn't come close to
matching the kind of damage to the cerebellum that would have been caused
by your bullet from near the EOP tracking to the trachea.
John Canal
>Come on, John, you can do better. The throat wound was around T1. The
>Clark Panel, Lattimer, and Sturdivan all claimed a bullet track descended
>within the neck to this level. The Clark Panel and Lattimer felt the back
>wound was far above the throat wound, and that this bullet track was
>inches long. Problemita. The HSCA FPP determined the back wound was also
>at T1. They even said it was slightly BELOW the throat wound. And the
>autopsy photos bear this out.
>
>So...either the bullet track observed by The Clark Panel, Lattimer, and
>Sturdivan came from somewhere other than the back wound, or the HSCA FPP's
>analysis of the back wound location is grossly mistaken. Which is it?
>
>And...if you decide to swallow the LN poison pill and pretend the back
>wound was really up at C5/C6, and that the Rydberg drawings were accurate,
>would you please tell us why the HSCA FPP--which you believe to have been
>in the tank for the Clark Panel--decided the back wound was much lower, so
>low in fact that the only way for the HSCA to save the SBT was to hire a
>NASA hack to move the back wound back up for the trajectory analysis!
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg/ThePortableHole-full;init:.jpg
>
>
>
>On Jul 10, 9:33=A0am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <a3a53a0f-60cc-436d-9ad6-88199c9c0...@d4g2000prc.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> pjspeare says...
>>
>> >Canal, the "air in the tissues" which many, including the Clark Panel,
>> >Lattimer, and Sturdivan believed to be a wound track,
>>
>> Really, "Speer"? What's your citation for the wound track indicated by th=
>e air
>> in the tissues being above the back wound to throat wound tarck?......it'=
>s not
>> PATSEER.COM, is it?
>>
>> Here's Lattimer: "There were tiny traces of air, visible in the X-rays, i=
>n the
>> tissues along the bullet track, near the hole in the
>> trachea." He then shows where that air was in his diagram and it's not ab=
>ove the
>> back wound to throat wound track. He may not have been a forensic patholo=
>gist,
>> but he was a combat surgeon during WWII ands sure as hell was able to rea=
>d
>> X-rays. Moreover he examined the originals...which you'll never do.
>>
>> Also, the HSCA's McDonnell wrote, "there was air in the soft tissues of t=
>he
>> right supraclavicular air" If this air had been above, and not associated=
> with,
>> the back wound to throat wound track don't you think he would have mentio=
>ned
>> that little tidbit?
>>
>> >begins well
>> >above the bullet entrance which the HSCA FPP determined to be at T1.
>>
>> Citation, other than Patspeer.com, please.
>>
>> >For this, and many other reasons, I concluded that the bullet entering
>> >near the EOP descended in Kennedy's neck, and exited his throat.
>>
>> That's even more wacky than the "Greer-did-it" theory. What about the bon=
>e that
>> forms the base of the skull---did they miss seeing a hole in that bone?..=
>..or do
>> you think your bullet went through the Foramen Magnum? If the latter, you=
> better
>> look again at your anatomy books...because that process doen't come close=
> to
>> lining up with a near-EOP to trachea track. And again, the cerebellum wou=
>ld have
>> been blasted apart if the bullet tracked like that...that is one wacky th=
>eory.
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg/chestxray-full.jpg
>>
>> >Upon close examination of the chest/neck x-ray, one notes a black spot
>> >(representing air in the tissues) at the approximate level of the
>> >exit, at approximately the midline of the throat. =A0This would appear
>> >to be the exit. Surprisingly, however, the black line which one would
>> >have to presume represents the bullet path, can be traced backwards up
>> >the neck, to a point much higher than the purported entrance in the
>> >President=3D92s back. That the HSCA forensic pathology panel attached no
>> >importance to this =3D93interstitial emphysema=3D94 (air in the tissues)=
>, even
>> >though one of its consultants, Dr. Seaman, considered it =3D93highly
>> >suspicious compared with the other side,=3D94 whilst simultaneously
>> >embracing a bullet path between the hole in the back and the hole in
>> >the neck, which tore no muscles and broke no bones, yet could not be
>> >probed by the autopsy doctors, is mysterious, if not disturbing. That
>> >their projected path through the neck starting at the back entrance
>> >more than an inch and a half to the right of the President=3D92s mid-lin=
>e
>> >and ending at their proposed exit in the throat slightly to the left
>> >of the President=3D92s mid-line blasted right through Kennedy=3D92s spin=
>e,
>> >while they claimed the bullet never touched a bone, makes their
>> >actions doubly mysterious, or disturbing. They simply refused to
>> >follow the evidence. =A0Or make sense.
>>
>> Citation for the above theory is what---Forensic Pathologist wannabe, Pat=
> Speer?
>>
>> >While I initially had doubts that a wound track could be so obvious,
>>
>> I should surely hope so.
>>
>> >I
>> >found a few people who seem to agree with me that this is a wound
>> >track. =A0People who have seen a few wound tracks.
>>
>> Any of them examine the originals?
>>
>> >Amazingly, the Clark
>> >Panel report, when discussing the back wound and the throat wound,
>> >declares: =3D93There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as
>> >indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on
>> >the x-rays=3D85=3D94 Well, I=3D92ll be! Perhaps this is the key to the C=
>lark
>> >Panel=3D92s mis-representing the vertical distance between the two wound=
>s=3D97
>> >while they could see that the bullet came down the neck,
>>
>> Oh, they saw that track, eh? But just couldn't believe what they were see=
>ing?
>> How about no hole in the base of the skull or a demolished cerebellum (fo=
>r
>> starters)...ya think those two clues tended to keep them from saying the =
>bullet
>> came down the neck?
>>
>>
>>
>> >they just
>> >couldn=3D92t fathom that it was coming from anywhere but the back wound.
>> >If someone were to coin the expression =3D93assassination research makes
>> >strange bedfellows,=3D94 this would be a perfect example.
>>
>> >Yet another who believes the shadows are a wound track is Larry
>> >Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert. =A0In his book, The JFK Myths,
>> >Strdivan declares =3D93The x-rays show a faint, but perceptible, shadow =
>of
>> >a wound track running from the entry location shown in the autopsy
>> >photos to the exit point at the suprasternal notch.=3D94 =A0Since Sturdi=
>van
>> >adds =3D93The entry was located just above the transverse process of the
>> >first thoracic vertebra=3D94 however, it=3D92s clear he=3D92s trying to =
>have it
>> >both ways, using an entrance slightly higher than the HSCA=3D92s entranc=
>e
>> >location and insisting that the exit in the throat was not higher than
>> >the back wound, as claimed by the HSCA, but lower. =A0Since the shadows
>> >on the x-ray begin much higher than T-1, however, we should reject
>> >Sturdivan=3D92s conclusion. =A0Moreover, I find it interesting that
>> >Sturdivan would call his book The JFK Myths, and claim it debunks the
>> >theories of the conspiracy community, and then submit that the HSCA
>> >had the entry location of the head wound, the exit location of the
>> >head wound, and the entrance location of the back wound incorrect.
>> >Perhaps he meant for his title to cut both ways. =A0More to the point,
>> >since it seems clear that Sturdivan is deliberately disregarding the
>> >wound locations of the forensic pathology panel in his work, the
>> >question must be asked: why is it considered unpatriotic,
>> >unscientific, or anti-American to question the specific conclusions of
>> >the government=3D92s panels when that leads you to conclude Kennedy was
>> >killed by a conspiracy, when it=3D92s not considered unpatriotic,
>> >unscientific or anti-American to question their conclusions if you say
>> >Oswald acted alone? =A0This double-standard, I believe, says a lot about
>> >why this case is still relevant.
>>
>> But these guys have seen the originals, which you'll never do, and their
>> qualifications dwarf yours....and, again, tell me what happened to the
>> devastation of the cerebellum and hole in the base of the skull that woul=
>d have
>> been there had the bullet tracked down the neck to the trachea from near =
>the
>> EOP!!!!
>>
>> IMO, because you've spent, what about 10 years, putting your theories on =
>your
>> website, you wouldn't be able to change them now, even if you knew they w=
>ere
>> wrong....you just don't have another 10 years to spend correcting them.
>>
>> John Canal
>>
>> >On Jul 8, 7:06=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> Something caused:
>>
>> >> 1. a slight fracture to be seen on the neck x-rays of the transverse
>> >> process of T1.
>>
>> >> 2. tiny bone fragments to be seen on the neck x-rays in the area of th=
>e
>> >> right side of C7.
>>
>> >> 3. air to be seen on the neck x-rays on a line in the tissues through =
>the
>> >> neck.
>>
>> >> 4. the apex of the pleura to be bruised.
>>
>> >> 5. the apex of the right lung to be bruised.
>>
>> >> 6. two slits in the shirt behind the necktie knot.
>>
>> >> 7. a nick in the necktie.
>>
>> >> and
>>
>> >> 8. a bullet wound in he throat.
>>
>> >> soooooo, if it wasn't the bullet that caused the bullet wound seen in =
>the
>> >> back wound photos that caused all that (see 1 - 8 above), what did cau=
>se
>> >> that damage?
>>
>> >> Oh shucks--I just thought of something--if my memory serves, you theor=
>ize
>> >> that the near-EOP entering bullet came out his throat...right? If I've=
> go=3D
>> >t
>> >> you mixed up with another CT on that wacky theory, I humbly apologize =
pjspeare
> In article <a3a53a0f-60cc-436d-9ad6-88199c9c0...@d4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
John, there is no x-ray showing the base of the skull. When I took my
power point presentation on the x-rays to a radiology forum, this
point was readily conceded. As was my position that the supposedly
occipital fractures on the A-P x-ray were more likely fractures of the
eye socket...
John Canal
>power point presentation on the x-rays to a radiology forum, this
>point was readily conceded. As was my position that the supposedly
>occipital fractures on the A-P x-ray were more likely fractures of the
>eye socket...
First of all they would have easily seen such a hole in the bone that
forms the base of the skull when they removed the brain.
Second, bone fragments would have been seen on the lateral x-ray beneath
any such hole in the aforementioned bone.
There was no, nada, zilcho, holes in the base of the skull that would have
been caused by your near-EOP to trachea bullet track.
And what about the cerebellum damage...did they switch brains?
John Canal
John Fiorentino
The autopsy photos DO NOT bear it out. The back wound is indeed above the
throat exit.
Lattimer stated this correctly. I worked with Dr. Lattimer on many
occasions, and as many know, he wrote the into. to my book. The only one
he ever wrote, I believe.
I also worked on the photos, and explain exactly how one could be mistaken
(as Baden was) about this.
Baden's mumbo jumbo about the "anatomic position" is misguided and simply
wrong.
Many of his ramblings are gross distortions and point to his "expertise"
as being less than expert.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:bfa3a454-f357-4840...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Canal, the "air in the tissues" which many, including the Clark Panel,
> Lattimer, and Sturdivan believed to be a wound track, begins well
> above the bullet entrance which the HSCA FPP determined to be at T1.
> For this, and many other reasons, I concluded that the bullet entering
> near the EOP descended in Kennedy's neck, and exited his throat.
>
I'd like to see you diagram such a path. It goes nowhere near the area
described as showing air in the tissues.
> http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg/chestxray-full.jpg
>
> Upon close examination of the chest/neck x-ray, one notes a black spot
> (representing air in the tissues) at the approximate level of the
> exit, at approximately the midline of the throat. This would appear
> to be the exit. Surprisingly, however, the black line which one would
> have to presume represents the bullet path, can be traced backwards up
> the neck, to a point much higher than the purported entrance in the
> President?s back. That the HSCA forensic pathology panel attached no
> importance to this ?interstitial emphysema? (air in the tissues), even
> though one of its consultants, Dr. Seaman, considered it ?highly
> suspicious compared with the other side,? whilst simultaneously
> embracing a bullet path between the hole in the back and the hole in
> the neck, which tore no muscles and broke no bones, yet could not be
> probed by the autopsy doctors, is mysterious, if not disturbing. That
> their projected path through the neck starting at the back entrance
> more than an inch and a half to the right of the President?s mid-line
> and ending at their proposed exit in the throat slightly to the left
> of the President?s mid-line blasted right through Kennedy?s spine,
> while they claimed the bullet never touched a bone, makes their
> actions doubly mysterious, or disturbing. They simply refused to
> follow the evidence. Or make sense.
>
> While I initially had doubts that a wound track could be so obvious, I
> found a few people who seem to agree with me that this is a wound
> track. People who have seen a few wound tracks. Amazingly, the Clark
> Panel report, when discussing the back wound and the throat wound,
> declares: ?There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as
> indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on
> the x-rays?? Well, I?ll be! Perhaps this is the key to the Clark
> Panel?s mis-representing the vertical distance between the two wounds?
> while they could see that the bullet came down the neck, they just
> couldn?t fathom that it was coming from anywhere but the back wound.
> If someone were to coin the expression ?assassination research makes
> strange bedfellows,? this would be a perfect example.
>
> Yet another who believes the shadows are a wound track is Larry
> Sturdivan, the HSCA ballistics expert. In his book, The JFK Myths,
> Strdivan declares ?The x-rays show a faint, but perceptible, shadow of
> a wound track running from the entry location shown in the autopsy
> photos to the exit point at the suprasternal notch.? Since Sturdivan
> adds ?The entry was located just above the transverse process of the
> first thoracic vertebra? however, it?s clear he?s trying to have it
> both ways, using an entrance slightly higher than the HSCA?s entrance
> location and insisting that the exit in the throat was not higher than
> the back wound, as claimed by the HSCA, but lower. Since the shadows
> on the x-ray begin much higher than T-1, however, we should reject
> Sturdivan?s conclusion. Moreover, I find it interesting that
> Sturdivan would call his book The JFK Myths, and claim it debunks the
> theories of the conspiracy community, and then submit that the HSCA
> had the entry location of the head wound, the exit location of the
> head wound, and the entrance location of the back wound incorrect.
> Perhaps he meant for his title to cut both ways. More to the point,
> since it seems clear that Sturdivan is deliberately disregarding the
> wound locations of the forensic pathology panel in his work, the
> question must be asked: why is it considered unpatriotic,
> unscientific, or anti-American to question the specific conclusions of
> the government?s panels when that leads you to conclude Kennedy was
> killed by a conspiracy, when it?s not considered unpatriotic,
> unscientific or anti-American to question their conclusions if you say
> Oswald acted alone? This double-standard, I believe, says a lot about
> why this case is still relevant.
>
Note to others:
Take a look at HSCA Figure 24. What the heck is that faint black dot on
the left shoulder? I thought it was a printing defect or something, but
apparently it is on the original exhibit. What were they thinking? Who put
it there?
pjspeare
of the cerebellum. The tissue slides of this damage--which could
possibly have shown that this damage was caused by a bullet,
conveniently disappeared. (Okay, okay, I'll grant that it was probably
Bobby.)
As far as your assertion about the base of the skull, this is merely
what you want to believe. Books on autopsies stress that you need to
remove the dura from the base of the skull, and drain the blood from
the base of the skull, to look for fractures and bullet holes. This,
apparently, was not done. There is certainly no account of this
anywhere.
As a result it seems likely that Humes and Boswell saw a small
entrance near the EOP and a large exit on the top of the head, and put
two and two together, and assumed the two wounds were connected, and
never looked at the base of the skull. They might have been right.
They might have been wrong. Dr. Burkley certainly had his doubts.
There were TWO witnesses to the autopsy, moreover, who swore that the
doctors originally concluded the EOP entrance connected to the throat
wound. Now what are the odds of that? That not one, but TWO,
independent witnesses to the autopsy would tell the HSCA that the
doctors originally concluded the bullet hitting Kennedy low on the
head exited his throat.
From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:
Having established, I believe, a strong case for a new perspective on
the President’s wounds, the statements of three autopsy witnesses
become relevant. While their memories and/or impressions could very
well be wrong, if they are correct, then the conspiracy to suppress
the medical evidence began much earlier than one might otherwise
believe. The first witness whose statements are relevant to our
analysis is Dr. George Burkley, the President’s physician. Burkley
was the only doctor to view Kennedy’s remains in both Dallas and
Bethesda. While he died some time ago, he nevertheless left behind a
trail which tells an altogether different story than the one provided
by the government.
1. The day after the assassination, Dr. Burkley prepared Kennedy’s
death certificate. He listed the cause of death as simply “Gunshot
wound, skull” (no specific entrance and exit). In the summary of
facts he explained that Kennedy was “struck in the head” and that the
wound was “shattering in type causing a fragmentation of the skull.”
He said the “second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the
level of the third thoracic vertebra.” This location was slightly
lower than the location eventually decided on by the autopsy surgeons
and was far too low to be compatible with the single-bullet theory.
Also intriguing, however, Burkley’s mentioning the small entrance
wound on the back discovered at the autopsy but failing to mention the
small entrance wound on the back of the skull discovered at the
autopsy suggests the possibility he had doubts this small entrance
wound connected to the large defect.
2. On November 27, 1963, the FBI delivered the Harper fragment to Dr.
Burkley. Despite the fact that this fragment showed both internal and
external beveling, which indicated that it came from a tangential
wound, Dr. Burkley failed to tell Dr. Humes about the fragment. While
the report of the initial autopsy had been completed, Dr. Humes had
not yet inspected the brain and completed his work. So why didn't Dr.
Burkley tell Humes about this fragment? Did Dr. Burkley understand its
importance?
3. On October 17, 1967, Dr. Burkley was interviewed by William McHugh
on behalf of the Kennedy Library. When asked about the autopsy of
President Kennedy, he told McHugh “My conclusion in regard to the
cause of death was the bullet wound which involved the skull. The
discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as
far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the
bullet which shattered the brain and the calvarium.” While, on the
surface, this seems to agree with the autopsy report, the “previous
bullet” mentioned by Burkley could very well mean “the previous bullet
to strike Kennedy in the skull but not shatter his calvarium.”
Supporting this speculation, when McHugh asked Burkley if he agreed
with the Warren Report’s conclusions “on the number of bullets that
entered the President’s body,” Dr. Burkley replied “I would not care
to be quoted on that.” (It's possible, of course, that Burkley's
concern here was the throat wound, which he never associated with the
back wound. If he thought this wound was unrelated to the back wound,
then he would have by extension believed Kennedy to have been hit at
least three times, from both the front and from the back.)
4. A memo created by the original chief counsel of the HSCA, Richard
Sprague, and found years later in his files, indicates that on March
18, 1977, he spoke to William Illig, Burkley’s attorney. Illig told
Sprague that Burkley had information indicating that Oswald did not
act alone.
5. When HSCA staff member Andy Purdy finally spoke to Burkley on
August 17, 1977, however, the most Burkley said about the possibility
of a conspiracy was that “the doctors didn’t section the brain and
that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not
there were two bullets.”
6. On November 28, 1978, towards the end of the HSCA, Burkley signed
a sworn statement stating that he was interviewed by Mark Flanagan and
Andy Purdy of the HSCA in January 1978. In this statement, he
acknowledges “I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and
retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or
bullets.” (I hope to find Flanagan and Purdy’s account of this
interview in the future.)
7. In his book Reasonable Doubt, writer Henry Hurt claimed to have
spoken to Burkley in 1982, and to have been told by Burkley that he
believed Kennnedy was killed by a conspiracy.
8. A January, 1997 memo by Doug Horne of the ARRB reflects that he
contacted Burkley’s daughter and asked her to grant access to the
files on her father kept by his former attorney, William Illig. It was
hoped that these files would contain the information Mr. Illig had
called Richard Sprague about almost twenty years earlier. She
initially agreed, but by July, 1998, had changed her mind.
Nevertheless, by piecing together Burkley’s statements, we can
approximate what he was thinking. Nowhere in his statements did he
ever say the fatal bullet entered the back of Kennedy’s head.
Consequently, when he mentioned a “previous bullet” to McHugh it’s
possible he was referring to an earlier, less severe head wound. Since
his placement of the back wound ruled out the single-bullet theory,
and since he suspected two bullets struck Kennedy in the head, it’s
quite possible he suspected Kennedy was killed in the manner here
proposed.
A second witness of interest was Tom Robinson, who worked at Gawler’s
Funeral Home. He helped clean up and reconstruct the President’s
skull after the autopsy. While his recollections of many of the
details of that night were foggy—some changed dramatically between his
1977 interview with the HSCA and his 1996 interview with the ARRB—he
nevertheless made several relevant statements. He told the HSCA that
“The inside of the skull was badly smashed,” that he remembered
something about the bullet exiting from the throat, that the bullet
“might have been coming from the head and down,” and that he remembers
the doctors probing “at the base of the head,’ with an “18 inch piece
of metal.” He told the ARRB, 19 years later that, “there were
fractures all over the cranium, including the base of the skull,” and
that he had “vivid recollections of a very long, malleable probe being
used during the autopsy. His most vivid recollection of the probe is
seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head
(after removal of the brain), and seeing the tip of the probe come out
the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck. He was adamant about
this recollection. He also recalls seeing the wound high in the back
probed unsuccessfully, meaning that the probe did not exit anywhere.”
While some have sought to discredit Robinson’s statements by pointing
out their inconsistencies, they can not be wholly discounted. His
memories on some details have proved accurate. For instance, he told
the ARRB that “he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right
cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small
wounds and discoloration began to occur.” These wounds, not mentioned
in the autopsy report, and rarely mentioned elsewhere, are indeed
visible in the “stare of death” autopsy photo. While such wounds are
in correlation with a bullet exploding near Kennedy’s temple while his
head was leaning 25 degrees to its left, its difficult to see how they
could be caused by a fragmenting bullet sailing upwards from his
cranium, as proposed in Larry Sturdivan’s scenario.
Finally, there’s Richard Lipsey, who was a military aide to the
general responsible for Kennedy’s funeral, General Wehle. Lipsey was
ordered to keep an eye on the President’s body during the autopsy.
Consequently he sat close by and tried to listen to what the doctors
were saying. He prepared a face sheet for the HSCA staff depicting
the President’s wounds as he remembered them being discussed. And
they’re exactly as surmised in this webpage! In dismissing Lipsey’s
account, the HSCA medical report said “Lipsey apparently formulated
his conclusions based on observations and not on the conclusions of
the doctors. In this regard, he believed the massive defect in the
head represented an entrance and an exit when it was only an exit. He
also concluded the entrance in the rear of the head corresponded to an
exit in the neck. This conclusion could not have originated with the
doctors because during the autopsy they believed the neck defect only
represented a tracheostomy incision…Thus, although Lipsey’s
recollection of the number of defects to the body and the
corresponding locations are correct, his conclusions are wrong and are
not supported by any other evidence.”
How strange that the writers of this report represent these as
Lipsey’s conclusions, when his testimony is clear that this is simply
what he believes he overheard! The panel never even asked the autopsy
doctors if a shot connecting the wounds in the hairline and neck had
been considered. The possibility of such a trajectory is never even
discussed in their report. If the HSCA forensic pathology panel
believed Lipsey to be wrong then they should have just said he
probably misunderstood the doctors. Instead, the panel, which
concluded that the Bethesda doctors' recollections were off by 4
inches on the head wound and at least 2 inches on the back wound,
concluded that Lipsey was obviously wrong because his testimony was in
disagreement with the statements of these very same doctors!
Had the panel confused the Hippocratic Oath with a lifelong pledge to
be hypocrites?
pjspeare
side of the spine and curling over around T1. It may very well head
all the way back to the EOP. The HSCA knew they had no explanation for
this so they invented some claptrap about the tie closing off the
throat wound, and air backing up in the neck. You certainly know
better.
http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg
From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:
When I re-read the Final Report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel,
I was finally able to satisfy myself that a bullet descended in
Kennedy’s neck, most logically from the entrance in the hairline. Not
because of what was said in the report as much as what was not said.
What was not said was a convincing explanation for what appears to be
a bullet track heading down the neck.
Here’s how the forensic pathology panel dealt with the white spots
apparent on x-ray number 8 and identified by the Clark Panel and Dr.
Lattimer as possible bullet or bone fragments. These fragments just
so happen to be directly along the bullet path from the occipital bone
to the throat wound. An acknowledgment of these fragments as
fragments, whether bone or metal, would call into question the single-
bullet theory as proposed by the HSCA. So the doctors did what all
prominent doctors do in a time of crisis. They brought in some
specialists to tell them what they want to hear... Dr. McDonnell said
the white spots were “artifacts not uncommonly caused by foreign
materials on the film or in the developing solution.” He stated
further that the dark shadow seen on x-ray number 8 was not seen on x-
ray number 9 and that this suggested this shadow too was an artifact.
Dr. Chase said “the 1 by 2.5 millimeter object was too small and too
dense to be bone; rather, the little trail of dots near the fragment
was indicative of artifacts.” Dr. Seaman said “there was a fragment-
like object near the transverse process which was too dense to be bone
(“fairly confident”) He said the transverse process appears normal
with air present (“possibly byproduct of tracheotomy”), calling it
“highly suspicious compared with the other side.” So here we have the
HSCA’s radiology consultants basically saying that they don’t know
what to make of the x-rays but that it’s okay by them if the forensic
pathology panel decides they want to dismiss as artifacts what might
just be bullet fragments in Kennedy’s neck. They’re also giving them
the wink wink nod nod that they can call the apparent wound track
coming down the neck, the possibility of which is never mentioned in
the report, by the way, as “air” from the tracheotomy. Naturally, the
panel took them up on their offer.
Here’s the hot air the panel drummed up to dismiss this “air” and the
unspoken possibility the bullet came down the neck: “The panel noted a
general haziness and poorly defined decrease in radiodensity in the
neck tissues just above the right chest cavity in films 8 and 9, and
attributed this to interstitial emphysema. This was probably related
to the surgical tracheotomy or missile injury to the trachea, followed
by positive pressure insufflation, with a slight escape of air into
the adjacent tissues. Continued breathing by the President, possible
even after the trachea had been perforated by the missile because the
overlyng defect was more or less sealed by the shirt and necktie,
could also have caused air to leak into the adjacent tissues.” So the
air backed up into Kennedy’s neck when his shirt and necktie somehow
sealed off the exit from his throat???? And, by some strange chance,
this air backed up into the neck on the right side only, even though
the exit on the trachea was, according to the HSCA, slightly to the
left of midline? And this air went up in a line that deflected off
the first rib? When we recall that radiologist Dr. David Davis told
the panel that air from a skull base fracture came down the neck,
their lame attempts to explain how this air went up the neck seem
especially pathetic. Clearly, as revealed by their dismissal of
Lipsey’s statements, they refused to acknowledge the possibility that
anything could come down the neck. One wonders why this is. I mean,
why not just call the air an artifact and get it over with?
John Canal
>
>John, as you well know, there was cerebellum damage, on the underside
>of the cerebellum.
Right.....about 1/100th the damage that it would have sustained had the bullet
tracked the way you imagine it did.
>The tissue slides of this damage--which could
>possibly have shown that this damage was caused by a bullet,
>conveniently disappeared. (Okay, okay, I'll grant that it was probably
>Bobby.)
>
>As far as your assertion about the base of the skull, this is merely
>what you want to believe.
I try to be logical....I really do....because at my age I hate to be laughed at
advancing dumb theories.
>Books on autopsies stress that you need to
>remove the dura from the base of the skull, and drain the blood from
>the base of the skull, to look for fractures and bullet holes.
I presume you meant to say, "NOT to look for fractures and bullet holes"?
Your theory has got so many holes [no pun intended] in it you're resorting to
the wackiest of wacky notions to keep it afloat---if you recall, they were
charged with determining the cause of death...that would include lookng for
bullet holes, especially in life-threatening arears like the base of the
skull.......and considering that was the body of the President of the United
States, I suspect they would have tried extra hard to get it right. Look on your
model skull--if the track went like you propose, the hole in the base of the
skull would have been fairly close to where they cut the brain stem that arises
through the Foramen Magnum. It [your bullet hole] would have been very roughly
just to the right of that opening....ONLY IF THEY WERE BLIND, OR ABOUT AS
QUALIFED AS BRICKLAYERS POSING AS PATHOLOGISTS, WOULD THEY HAVE MISSED SEEING
SUCH A HOLE IN THE BASE OF THE SKULL THERE.
Please, you're falling deeper into your theoretical hole than Alice of
Wonderland did in her hole.
>This,
>apparently, was not done. There is certainly no account of this
>anywhere.
LOL! If the track was as they said it was (which it was, of course), you
honestly would have expected something in their report like, "We looked for
bullet holes in the base of the skull, but didn't see anY"?
Excuse me...one more LOL!
>As a result it seems likely that Humes and Boswell saw a small
>entrance near the EOP and a large exit on the top of the head, and put
>two and two together, and assumed the two wounds were connected, and
Humes claimed there was a trail of tiny metal fragments extending from the
near-EOP entry to the the right supra-orbital ridge....it's pretty obvious that
he "assumed" they were connected. As it turned out he was pretty close.
>never looked at the base of the skull.
They couldn't have missed seeing such a hole--it was right there and the dura
would have been ripped away (your track, not theirs). When they removed the
brain there would have been so much cerebellum damage (your track, not theirs),
they would have looked for your bullet hole in the base of the skull.
>They might have been right.
>They might have been wrong. Dr. Burkley certainly had his doubts.
>There were TWO witnesses to the autopsy, moreover, who swore that the
>doctors originally concluded the EOP entrance connected to the throat
>wound.
Maybe...briefly....before they removed the brain.
>Now what are the odds of that? That not one, but TWO,
>independent witnesses to the autopsy would tell the HSCA that the
>doctors originally concluded the bullet hitting Kennedy low on the
>head exited his throat.
You calculate them, I've already wasted too much of my time on this sillyness.
>From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:
Pleeeese!
[...]
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> Tony, the air in the tissues is the black line heading down the right
> side of the spine and curling over around T1. It may very well head
"May very well"? Rank speculation.
The air in the tissue is just above T-1. Nowhere near the EOP.
> all the way back to the EOP. The HSCA knew they had no explanation for
> this so they invented some claptrap about the tie closing off the
> throat wound, and air backing up in the neck. You certainly know
> better.
>
I don't need to rely on any HSCA lies.
> http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg
>
> From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:
>
> When I re-read the Final Report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel,
> I was finally able to satisfy myself that a bullet descended in
> Kennedy�s neck, most logically from the entrance in the hairline. Not
> because of what was said in the report as much as what was not said.
> What was not said was a convincing explanation for what appears to be
> a bullet track heading down the neck.
>
> Here�s how the forensic pathology panel dealt with the white spots
> apparent on x-ray number 8 and identified by the Clark Panel and Dr.
> Lattimer as possible bullet or bone fragments. These fragments just
> so happen to be directly along the bullet path from the occipital bone
> to the throat wound. An acknowledgment of these fragments as
> fragments, whether bone or metal, would call into question the single-
> bullet theory as proposed by the HSCA. So the doctors did what all
> prominent doctors do in a time of crisis. They brought in some
> specialists to tell them what they want to hear... Dr. McDonnell said
> the white spots were �artifacts not uncommonly caused by foreign
> materials on the film or in the developing solution.� He stated
> further that the dark shadow seen on x-ray number 8 was not seen on x-
> ray number 9 and that this suggested this shadow too was an artifact.
> Dr. Chase said �the 1 by 2.5 millimeter object was too small and too
> dense to be bone; rather, the little trail of dots near the fragment
> was indicative of artifacts.� Dr. Seaman said �there was a fragment-
> like object near the transverse process which was too dense to be bone
> (�fairly confident�) He said the transverse process appears normal
> with air present (�possibly byproduct of tracheotomy�), calling it
> �highly suspicious compared with the other side.� So here we have the
> HSCA�s radiology consultants basically saying that they don�t know
> what to make of the x-rays but that it�s okay by them if the forensic
> pathology panel decides they want to dismiss as artifacts what might
> just be bullet fragments in Kennedy�s neck. They�re also giving them
> the wink wink nod nod that they can call the apparent wound track
> coming down the neck, the possibility of which is never mentioned in
> the report, by the way, as �air� from the tracheotomy. Naturally, the
> panel took them up on their offer.
>
> Here�s the hot air the panel drummed up to dismiss this �air� and the
> unspoken possibility the bullet came down the neck: �The panel noted a
> general haziness and poorly defined decrease in radiodensity in the
> neck tissues just above the right chest cavity in films 8 and 9, and
> attributed this to interstitial emphysema. This was probably related
> to the surgical tracheotomy or missile injury to the trachea, followed
> by positive pressure insufflation, with a slight escape of air into
> the adjacent tissues. Continued breathing by the President, possible
> even after the trachea had been perforated by the missile because the
> overlyng defect was more or less sealed by the shirt and necktie,
> could also have caused air to leak into the adjacent tissues.� So the
> air backed up into Kennedy�s neck when his shirt and necktie somehow
> sealed off the exit from his throat???? And, by some strange chance,
> this air backed up into the neck on the right side only, even though
> the exit on the trachea was, according to the HSCA, slightly to the
> left of midline? And this air went up in a line that deflected off
> the first rib? When we recall that radiologist Dr. David Davis told
> the panel that air from a skull base fracture came down the neck,
> their lame attempts to explain how this air went up the neck seem
> especially pathetic. Clearly, as revealed by their dismissal of
> Lipsey�s statements, they refused to acknowledge the possibility that
Anthony Marsh
> of the cerebellum. The tissue slides of this damage--which could
> possibly have shown that this damage was caused by a bullet,
> conveniently disappeared. (Okay, okay, I'll grant that it was probably
> Bobby.)
>
> As far as your assertion about the base of the skull, this is merely
> what you want to believe. Books on autopsies stress that you need to
> remove the dura from the base of the skull, and drain the blood from
> the base of the skull, to look for fractures and bullet holes. This,
> apparently, was not done. There is certainly no account of this
> anywhere.
>
> As a result it seems likely that Humes and Boswell saw a small
> entrance near the EOP and a large exit on the top of the head, and put
> two and two together, and assumed the two wounds were connected, and
> never looked at the base of the skull. They might have been right.
> They might have been wrong. Dr. Burkley certainly had his doubts.
>
No, what they saw was a dab of tissue on top of the hair near the EOP
and ASSuMEd it was an entrance wound with brain tissue oozing out.
> There were TWO witnesses to the autopsy, moreover, who swore that the
> doctors originally concluded the EOP entrance connected to the throat
> wound. Now what are the odds of that? That not one, but TWO,
> independent witnesses to the autopsy would tell the HSCA that the
> doctors originally concluded the bullet hitting Kennedy low on the
> head exited his throat.
>
Jeez, what are the odds that two independent witnesses said a whole
bullet rolled out when they remove the wrappings? Never rely on
witnesses. Never.
> From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:
>
> Having established, I believe, a strong case for a new perspective on
> the President�s wounds, the statements of three autopsy witnesses
> become relevant. While their memories and/or impressions could very
> well be wrong, if they are correct, then the conspiracy to suppress
> the medical evidence began much earlier than one might otherwise
> believe. The first witness whose statements are relevant to our
> analysis is Dr. George Burkley, the President�s physician. Burkley
> was the only doctor to view Kennedy�s remains in both Dallas and
> Bethesda. While he died some time ago, he nevertheless left behind a
> trail which tells an altogether different story than the one provided
> by the government.
>
> 1. The day after the assassination, Dr. Burkley prepared Kennedy�s
> death certificate. He listed the cause of death as simply �Gunshot
> wound, skull� (no specific entrance and exit). In the summary of
> facts he explained that Kennedy was �struck in the head� and that the
> wound was �shattering in type causing a fragmentation of the skull.�
> He said the �second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the
> level of the third thoracic vertebra.� This location was slightly
> lower than the location eventually decided on by the autopsy surgeons
> and was far too low to be compatible with the single-bullet theory.
> Also intriguing, however, Burkley�s mentioning the small entrance
> wound on the back discovered at the autopsy but failing to mention the
> small entrance wound on the back of the skull discovered at the
> autopsy suggests the possibility he had doubts this small entrance
> wound connected to the large defect.
>
> 2. On November 27, 1963, the FBI delivered the Harper fragment to Dr.
> Burkley. Despite the fact that this fragment showed both internal and
> external beveling, which indicated that it came from a tangential
> wound, Dr. Burkley failed to tell Dr. Humes about the fragment. While
> the report of the initial autopsy had been completed, Dr. Humes had
> not yet inspected the brain and completed his work. So why didn't Dr.
> Burkley tell Humes about this fragment? Did Dr. Burkley understand its
> importance?
>
> 3. On October 17, 1967, Dr. Burkley was interviewed by William McHugh
> on behalf of the Kennedy Library. When asked about the autopsy of
> President Kennedy, he told McHugh �My conclusion in regard to the
> cause of death was the bullet wound which involved the skull. The
> discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as
> far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the
> bullet which shattered the brain and the calvarium.� While, on the
> surface, this seems to agree with the autopsy report, the �previous
> bullet� mentioned by Burkley could very well mean �the previous bullet
> to strike Kennedy in the skull but not shatter his calvarium.�
> Supporting this speculation, when McHugh asked Burkley if he agreed
> with the Warren Report�s conclusions �on the number of bullets that
> entered the President�s body,� Dr. Burkley replied �I would not care
> to be quoted on that.� (It's possible, of course, that Burkley's
> concern here was the throat wound, which he never associated with the
> back wound. If he thought this wound was unrelated to the back wound,
> then he would have by extension believed Kennedy to have been hit at
> least three times, from both the front and from the back.)
>
> 4. A memo created by the original chief counsel of the HSCA, Richard
> Sprague, and found years later in his files, indicates that on March
> 18, 1977, he spoke to William Illig, Burkley�s attorney. Illig told
> Sprague that Burkley had information indicating that Oswald did not
> act alone.
>
> 5. When HSCA staff member Andy Purdy finally spoke to Burkley on
> August 17, 1977, however, the most Burkley said about the possibility
> of a conspiracy was that �the doctors didn�t section the brain and
> that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not
> there were two bullets.�
>
> 6. On November 28, 1978, towards the end of the HSCA, Burkley signed
> a sworn statement stating that he was interviewed by Mark Flanagan and
> Andy Purdy of the HSCA in January 1978. In this statement, he
> acknowledges �I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and
> retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or
> bullets.� (I hope to find Flanagan and Purdy�s account of this
> interview in the future.)
>
> 7. In his book Reasonable Doubt, writer Henry Hurt claimed to have
> spoken to Burkley in 1982, and to have been told by Burkley that he
> believed Kennnedy was killed by a conspiracy.
>
> 8. A January, 1997 memo by Doug Horne of the ARRB reflects that he
> contacted Burkley�s daughter and asked her to grant access to the
> files on her father kept by his former attorney, William Illig. It was
> hoped that these files would contain the information Mr. Illig had
> called Richard Sprague about almost twenty years earlier. She
> initially agreed, but by July, 1998, had changed her mind.
>
> Nevertheless, by piecing together Burkley�s statements, we can
> approximate what he was thinking. Nowhere in his statements did he
> ever say the fatal bullet entered the back of Kennedy�s head.
> Consequently, when he mentioned a �previous bullet� to McHugh it�s
> possible he was referring to an earlier, less severe head wound. Since
> his placement of the back wound ruled out the single-bullet theory,
> and since he suspected two bullets struck Kennedy in the head, it�s
> quite possible he suspected Kennedy was killed in the manner here
> proposed.
>
> A second witness of interest was Tom Robinson, who worked at Gawler�s
> Funeral Home. He helped clean up and reconstruct the President�s
> skull after the autopsy. While his recollections of many of the
> details of that night were foggy�some changed dramatically between his
> 1977 interview with the HSCA and his 1996 interview with the ARRB�he
> nevertheless made several relevant statements. He told the HSCA that
> �The inside of the skull was badly smashed,� that he remembered
> something about the bullet exiting from the throat, that the bullet
> �might have been coming from the head and down,� and that he remembers
> the doctors probing �at the base of the head,� with an �18 inch piece
> of metal.� He told the ARRB, 19 years later that, �there were
> fractures all over the cranium, including the base of the skull,� and
> that he had �vivid recollections of a very long, malleable probe being
> used during the autopsy. His most vivid recollection of the probe is
> seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head
> (after removal of the brain), and seeing the tip of the probe come out
> the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck. He was adamant about
> this recollection. He also recalls seeing the wound high in the back
> probed unsuccessfully, meaning that the probe did not exit anywhere.�
> While some have sought to discredit Robinson�s statements by pointing
> out their inconsistencies, they can not be wholly discounted. His
> memories on some details have proved accurate. For instance, he told
> the ARRB that �he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right
> cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small
> wounds and discoloration began to occur.� These wounds, not mentioned
> in the autopsy report, and rarely mentioned elsewhere, are indeed
> visible in the �stare of death� autopsy photo. While such wounds are
> in correlation with a bullet exploding near Kennedy�s temple while his
> head was leaning 25 degrees to its left, its difficult to see how they
> could be caused by a fragmenting bullet sailing upwards from his
> cranium, as proposed in Larry Sturdivan�s scenario.
>
> Finally, there�s Richard Lipsey, who was a military aide to the
> general responsible for Kennedy�s funeral, General Wehle. Lipsey was
> ordered to keep an eye on the President�s body during the autopsy.
> Consequently he sat close by and tried to listen to what the doctors
> were saying. He prepared a face sheet for the HSCA staff depicting
> the President�s wounds as he remembered them being discussed. And
> they�re exactly as surmised in this webpage! In dismissing Lipsey�s
> account, the HSCA medical report said �Lipsey apparently formulated
> his conclusions based on observations and not on the conclusions of
> the doctors. In this regard, he believed the massive defect in the
> head represented an entrance and an exit when it was only an exit. He
> also concluded the entrance in the rear of the head corresponded to an
> exit in the neck. This conclusion could not have originated with the
> doctors because during the autopsy they believed the neck defect only
> represented a tracheostomy incision�Thus, although Lipsey�s
> recollection of the number of defects to the body and the
> corresponding locations are correct, his conclusions are wrong and are
> not supported by any other evidence.�
>
> How strange that the writers of this report represent these as
> Lipsey�s conclusions, when his testimony is clear that this is simply
Anthony Marsh
> Come on, John, you can do better. The throat wound was around T1. The
> Clark Panel, Lattimer, and Sturdivan all claimed a bullet track descended
> within the neck to this level. The Clark Panel and Lattimer felt the back
> wound was far above the throat wound, and that this bullet track was
> inches long. Problemita. The HSCA FPP determined the back wound was also
> at T1. They even said it was slightly BELOW the throat wound. And the
> autopsy photos bear this out.
>
You seem to have missed an important point. The HSCA said the back wound
was BELOW the throat wound with JFK in the anatomical position, but
slightly ABOVE the throat wound at the moment he was shot.
Anthony Marsh
> In article<a3a53a0f-60cc-436d...@d4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> pjspeare says...
>
>> Canal, the "air in the tissues" which many, including the Clark Panel,
>> Lattimer, and Sturdivan believed to be a wound track,
>
> Really, "Speer"? What's your citation for the wound track indicated by the air
> in the tissues being above the back wound to throat wound tarck?......it's not
> PATSEER.COM, is it?
>
> Here's Lattimer: "There were tiny traces of air, visible in the X-rays, in the
> tissues along the bullet track, near the hole in the
> trachea." He then shows where that air was in his diagram and it's not above the
> back wound to throat wound track. He may not have been a forensic pathologist,
> but he was a combat surgeon during WWII ands sure as hell was able to read
> X-rays. Moreover he examined the originals...which you'll never do.
>
I question whether the X-rays they made can tell us what we would like to
know. You can't see the track of the bullet wound in the head from those
X-rays, can you? The X-rays were mainly made to look for a bullet or
fragment to recover for evidence.
pjspeare
above T1?
On Jul 11, 1:04 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/11/2009 5:33 AM, pjspeare wrote:
>
> > Tony, the air in the tissues is the black line heading down the right
> > side of the spine and curling over around T1. It may very well head
>
> "May very well"? Rank speculation.
> The air in the tissue is just above T-1. Nowhere near the EOP.
>
> > all the way back to the EOP. The HSCA knew they had no explanation for
> > this so they invented some claptrap about the tie closing off the
> > throat wound, and air backing up in the neck. You certainly know
> > better.
>
> I don't need to rely on any HSCA lies.
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg
>
> > From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:
>
> > When I re-read the Final Report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel,
> > I was finally able to satisfy myself that a bullet descended in
> > Kennedy’s neck, most logically from the entrance in the hairline. Not
> > because of what was said in the report as much as what was not said.
> > What was not said was a convincing explanation for what appears to be
> > a bullet track heading down the neck.
>
> > Here’s how the forensic pathology panel dealt with the white spots
> > apparent on x-ray number 8 and identified by the Clark Panel and Dr.
> > Lattimer as possible bullet or bone fragments. These fragments just
> > so happen to be directly along the bullet path from the occipital bone
> > to the throat wound. An acknowledgment of these fragments as
> > fragments, whether bone or metal, would call into question the single-
> > bullet theory as proposed by the HSCA. So the doctors did what all
> > prominent doctors do in a time of crisis. They brought in some
> > specialists to tell them what they want to hear... Dr. McDonnell said
> > the white spots were “artifacts not uncommonly caused by foreign
> > materials on the film or in the developing solution.” He stated
> > further that the dark shadow seen on x-ray number 8 was not seen on x-
> > ray number 9 and that this suggested this shadow too was an artifact.
> > Dr. Chase said “the 1 by 2.5 millimeter object was too small and too
> > dense to be bone; rather, the little trail of dots near the fragment
> > was indicative of artifacts.” Dr. Seaman said “there was a fragment-
> > like object near the transverse process which was too dense to be bone
> > (“fairly confident”) He said the transverse process appears normal
> > with air present (“possibly byproduct of tracheotomy”), calling it
> > “highly suspicious compared with the other side.” So here we have the
> > HSCA’s radiology consultants basically saying that they don’t know
> > what to make of the x-rays but that it’s okay by them if the forensic
> > pathology panel decides they want to dismiss as artifacts what might
> > just be bullet fragments in Kennedy’s neck. They’re also giving them
> > the wink wink nod nod that they can call the apparent wound track
> > coming down the neck, the possibility of which is never mentioned in
> > the report, by the way, as “air” from the tracheotomy. Naturally, the
> > panel took them up on their offer.
>
> > Here’s the hot air the panel drummed up to dismiss this “air” and the
> > unspoken possibility the bullet came down the neck: “The panel noted a
> > general haziness and poorly defined decrease in radiodensity in the
> > neck tissues just above the right chest cavity in films 8 and 9, and
> > attributed this to interstitial emphysema. This was probably related
> > to the surgical tracheotomy or missile injury to the trachea, followed
> > by positive pressure insufflation, with a slight escape of air into
> > the adjacent tissues. Continued breathing by the President, possible
> > even after the trachea had been perforated by the missile because the
> > overlyng defect was more or less sealed by the shirt and necktie,
> > could also have caused air to leak into the adjacent tissues.” So the
> > air backed up into Kennedy’s neck when his shirt and necktie somehow
> > sealed off the exit from his throat???? And, by some strange chance,
> > this air backed up into the neck on the right side only, even though
> > the exit on the trachea was, according to the HSCA, slightly to the
> > left of midline? And this air went up in a line that deflected off
> > the first rib? When we recall that radiologist Dr. David Davis told
> > the panel that air from a skull base fracture came down the neck,
> > their lame attempts to explain how this air went up the neck seem
> > especially pathetic. Clearly, as revealed by their dismissal of
> > Lipsey’s statements, they refused to acknowledge the possibility that
> ...
>
> read more »
pjspeare
entrance and throat exit were around T-1. If the air in the tissues was
indeed the bullet track, it should run only a short distance, and end at
T-1. The supposed bullet track, however, runs much higher than this. Why?
On Jul 11, 3:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/10/2009 4:17 PM, pjspeare wrote:
>
> > Come on, John, you can do better. The throat wound was around T1. The
> > Clark Panel, Lattimer, and Sturdivan all claimed a bullet track descended
> > within the neck to this level. The Clark Panel and Lattimer felt the back
> > wound was far above the throat wound, and that this bullet track was
> > inches long. Problemita. The HSCA FPP determined the back wound was also
> > at T1. They even said it was slightly BELOW the throat wound. And the
> > autopsy photos bear this out.
>
> You seem to have missed an important point. The HSCA said the back wound
> was BELOW the throat wound with JFK in the anatomical position, but
> slightly ABOVE the throat wound at the moment he was shot.
>
> > So...either the bullet track observed by The Clark Panel, Lattimer, and
> > Sturdivan came from somewhere other than the back wound, or the HSCA FPP's
> > analysis of the back wound location is grossly mistaken. Which is it?
>
> > And...if you decide to swallow the LN poison pill and pretend the back
> > wound was really up at C5/C6, and that the Rydberg drawings were accurate,
> > would you please tell us why the HSCA FPP--which you believe to have been
> > in the tank for the Clark Panel--decided the back wound was much lower, so
> > low in fact that the only way for the HSCA to save the SBT was to hire a
> > NASA hack to move the back wound back up for the trajectory analysis!
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg/ThePortableHole-full;init...
> ...
>
> read more »
pjspeare
John, the silliness of your own theory is only amplified by your
suggestion that the lack of damage to the cerebellum destroys my theory. I
suspect the bullet may have been a low-velocity bullet, heading underneath
the cerebellum. Your trajectory has a high-velocity bullet heading
straight through the cerebellum.
http://www.patspeer.com/braintraj.jpg
On Jul 11, 6:35 am, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> 457cefbe1...@m11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, pjspeare says...
John Canal
pjspeare says...
>
>
>John, the silliness of your own theory is only amplified by your
>suggestion that the lack of damage to the cerebellum destroys my theory.
Truthfully, more than the cerebellum damage, it's your notion that the
autopsists would have missed seeing the damage to the skull (besides the
near-EOP entry wound) that your track would have caused....(low or high
velocity bullet).
So would you please post a graphic using an MRI of an adult male's brain
in the skull showing the path you think the bullet took?
Thank you.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
>
> John, the silliness of your own theory is only amplified by your
> suggestion that the lack of damage to the cerebellum destroys my theory. I
> suspect the bullet may have been a low-velocity bullet, heading underneath
> the cerebellum. Your trajectory has a high-velocity bullet heading
> straight through the cerebellum.
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/braintraj.jpg
>
What the Hell is that drawing? Are trying to make fun of John Canal's
EOP theory or making your own argument? That red line is heading right
for the cerebellum.
YOU need to diagram the complete path of YOUR bullet and then show us
where that bullet ended up.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony, can you really not see that the black line of air stretches inches
> above T1?
>
Show me what you mean and diagram what you think it represents.
> On Jul 11, 1:04 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 7/11/2009 5:33 AM, pjspeare wrote:
>>
>>> Tony, the air in the tissues is the black line heading down the right
>>> side of the spine and curling over around T1. It may very well head
>>
>> "May very well"? Rank speculation.
>> The air in the tissue is just above T-1. Nowhere near the EOP.
>>
>>> all the way back to the EOP. The HSCA knew they had no explanation for
>>> this so they invented some claptrap about the tie closing off the
>>> throat wound, and air backing up in the neck. You certainly know
>>> better.
>>
>> I don't need to rely on any HSCA lies.
>>
>>> http://www.patspeer.com/chestxray.jpg
>>
>>> From chapter 17 at patspeer.com:
>>
>>> When I re-read the Final Report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel,
>>> I was finally able to satisfy myself that a bullet descended in
>>> Kennedy�s neck, most logically from the entrance in the hairline. Not
>>> because of what was said in the report as much as what was not said.
>>> What was not said was a convincing explanation for what appears to be
>>> a bullet track heading down the neck.
>>
>>> Here�s how the forensic pathology panel dealt with the white spots
>>> apparent on x-ray number 8 and identified by the Clark Panel and Dr.
>>> Lattimer as possible bullet or bone fragments. These fragments just
>>> so happen to be directly along the bullet path from the occipital bone
>>> to the throat wound. An acknowledgment of these fragments as
>>> fragments, whether bone or metal, would call into question the single-
>>> bullet theory as proposed by the HSCA. So the doctors did what all
>>> prominent doctors do in a time of crisis. They brought in some
>>> specialists to tell them what they want to hear... Dr. McDonnell said
>>> the white spots were �artifacts not uncommonly caused by foreign
>>> materials on the film or in the developing solution.� He stated
>>> further that the dark shadow seen on x-ray number 8 was not seen on x-
>>> ray number 9 and that this suggested this shadow too was an artifact.
>>> Dr. Chase said �the 1 by 2.5 millimeter object was too small and too
>>> dense to be bone; rather, the little trail of dots near the fragment
>>> was indicative of artifacts.� Dr. Seaman said �there was a fragment-
>>> like object near the transverse process which was too dense to be bone
>>> (�fairly confident�) He said the transverse process appears normal
>>> with air present (�possibly byproduct of tracheotomy�), calling it
>>> �highly suspicious compared with the other side.� So here we have the
>>> HSCA�s radiology consultants basically saying that they don�t know
>>> what to make of the x-rays but that it�s okay by them if the forensic
>>> pathology panel decides they want to dismiss as artifacts what might
>>> just be bullet fragments in Kennedy�s neck. They�re also giving them
>>> the wink wink nod nod that they can call the apparent wound track
>>> coming down the neck, the possibility of which is never mentioned in
>>> the report, by the way, as �air� from the tracheotomy. Naturally, the
>>> panel took them up on their offer.
>>
>>> Here�s the hot air the panel drummed up to dismiss this �air� and the
>>> unspoken possibility the bullet came down the neck: �The panel noted a
>>> general haziness and poorly defined decrease in radiodensity in the
>>> neck tissues just above the right chest cavity in films 8 and 9, and
>>> attributed this to interstitial emphysema. This was probably related
>>> to the surgical tracheotomy or missile injury to the trachea, followed
>>> by positive pressure insufflation, with a slight escape of air into
>>> the adjacent tissues. Continued breathing by the President, possible
>>> even after the trachea had been perforated by the missile because the
>>> overlyng defect was more or less sealed by the shirt and necktie,
>>> could also have caused air to leak into the adjacent tissues.� So the
>>> air backed up into Kennedy�s neck when his shirt and necktie somehow
>>> sealed off the exit from his throat???? And, by some strange chance,
>>> this air backed up into the neck on the right side only, even though
>>> the exit on the trachea was, according to the HSCA, slightly to the
>>> left of midline? And this air went up in a line that deflected off
>>> the first rib? When we recall that radiologist Dr. David Davis told
>>> the panel that air from a skull base fracture came down the neck,
>>> their lame attempts to explain how this air went up the neck seem
>>> especially pathetic. Clearly, as revealed by their dismissal of
>>> Lipsey�s statements, they refused to acknowledge the possibility that
>> read more �
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> I miss no such point, Tony. The HSCA determined that both the back
> entrance and throat exit were around T-1. If the air in the tissues was
> indeed the bullet track, it should run only a short distance, and end at
Why would the air run only a short distance?
> T-1. The supposed bullet track, however, runs much higher than this. Why?
>
I don't see a supposed bullet track much higher.
>> read more �
>
>