Cowlick Vs Occipital Protuberance

[Gary Craig]

The HSCA said the entrance wound to JFKs head was in the cowlick area (which is the area where the hair parts at the back top of your head). However, Humes, Boswell and Finck told them they were misreading the autopsy x-rays and photos and the entrance wound was actually 4 inches lower in an area slightly to the right and above the Occipital Protuberance (which is the bony area at the base of your skull on the back).

In the attached drawing, i've drawn the angle at 17.5 degrees (which is what Dale Myers said the angle coming down was, i dont know what the HSCA said it was). On the drawing, the exit wound we see on frame Z313 seems to match more closely with what Humes, Boswell and Finck were saying about the entrance wound being low in the base of the skull.

Finck said the actual entry wound (as per the autopsy photo of the back of JFKs head) was near a white colored blob near the hairline as opposed to the darkened oval shape visible in the cowlick area. (see Reclaiming History pages 395 to 396 for where Humes, Boswell and Finck contradict the HSCA about the location of the entry wound on the head)

It was the Clark Panel that moved the entrance from the EOP to the cowlick. All the subsequent government investigations have

agreed with the cowlick entrance.

The autopsy doctors held JFK's skull in their hands with the scalp refracted and the brain removed. They requested photographs be made of

the outside and the inside of the wound. After they reexamined the autopsy materials in 1967 Dr. Finck wrote an after action report noting

those photographs were not  in the archive. All three doctors stood by their EOP entrance wound conclusion to the grave.





The Clark Panel based their cowlick entrance on the x-ray below that shows a trail of metal particles across the top of the skull.

Seems the autopsy doctors found one wound and the Clark Panel found another higher up on JFK's skull.

The doctors inexperience doing gunshot wound autopsies may account for the error. After all they missed the wound in front the throat.

The Logical conclusion IMO is at least two separate bullets hit JFK in the head.

[John Tonkovich]

It was the Clark Panel that moved the entrance from the EOP to the cowlick. All the subsequent government investigations have

agreed with the cowlick entrance.

The autopsy doctors held JFK's skull in their hands with the scalp refracted and the brain removed. They requested photographs be made of

the outside and the inside of the wound. After they reexamined the autopsy materials in 1967 Dr. Finck wrote an after action report noting

those photographs were not  in the archive. All three doctors stood by their EOP entrance wound conclusion to the grave.





The Clark Panel based their cowlick entrance on the x-ray below that shows a trail of metal particles across the top of the skull.

Seems the autopsy doctors found one wound and the Clark Panel found another higher up on JFK's skull.

The doctors inexperience doing gunshot wound autopsies may account for the error. After all they missed the wound in front the throat.

The Logical conclusion IMO is at least two separate bullets hit JFK in the head.


[/quote



Two in the head. One in the back.

[Jerry Organ]

It was the Clark Panel that moved the entrance from the EOP to the cowlick.

"Moved it"? What... did they alter the visual record? Because the visual record supports what the Clark Panel concluded.

All the subsequent government investigations have

agreed with the cowlick entrance.

The autopsy doctors held JFK's skull in their hands with the scalp refracted and the brain removed.

Reflecting the scalp to expose the EOP region requires a lot of effort, such as severing of attachments. None of that is mentioned in the autopsy report or their testimonies.

They requested photographs be made of

the outside and the inside of the wound. After they reexamined the autopsy materials in 1967 Dr. Finck wrote an after action report noting

those photographs were not  in the archive.

Finck thought there was (or there should have been in retrospect) a photo of the bared entry wound. But they only photographed the entry wound with ther scalp over it. They wanted to preserve the President's body as much as possible.

All three doctors stood by their EOP entrance wound conclusion to the grave.

They stood by Humes' word that he felt some bump under the scalp he--it is my belief--mistook for the EOP. None of them saw the bared scalp wound relative to the bared EOP. In fact Humes measured the scalp wound from the skull's midline, a line not generally visible on the exterior of the occipital bone. The parietal bone, however, exhibits a prominent suture line along the skull's midline.

The skull had numerous fractures radiating from the skull in-shoot. Could have been a fracture edge that Humes mistook for the EOP "bump".

The Clark Panel based their cowlick entrance on the x-ray below that shows a trail of metal particles across the top of the skull.

I believe they based it more so on what the lateral X-ray of the skull showed.

     

   "The position of this wound corresponds to the hole
     in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2.

    "On one of the lateral films of the skull (#2), a hole
     measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the
     outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm.
     on the internal surface can be seen in profile
     approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital
     protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the
     hole is depressed."

Geeze. Even a non-doctor sitting at home in isolation during a pandemic, distracted by the protest coverage on TV, can easily find support for the WCR-LN head shot.

Seems the autopsy doctors found one wound and the Clark Panel found another higher up on JFK's skull.

The doctors inexperience doing gunshot wound autopsies may account for the error. After all they missed the wound in front the throat.

The Logical conclusion IMO is at least two separate bullets hit JFK in the head.

"Logical conclusion"? LOL

[Joe Elliott]

The Logical conclusion IMO is at least two separate bullets hit JFK in the head.

Let’s apply your logical to the bullet that wounded JFK in the back:

The autopsy photographs indicate the that wounded JFK hit the back, near C7/T1. However, the hole in JFK’s coat indicates an entrance wound that was a couple of inches lower.

Logical conclusion, that JFK was hit in the back by two different bullets. One which did not put a hole in the jacket but did cause an entrance wound. And a second bullet that caused an entrance wound, but did not put a hole in the jacket.

No, the logical conclusion is that one bullet put a hole in the jacket and caused the entrance wound in the back. The misalignment must have been caused by the coat riding up, which can be seen in some photographs taken just before JFK was wounded.

In other words, the discrepancy is caused by someone making an error in estimating the location of the bullet wound. Either one should not use the location of the entrance wound on the body to determine the location of the entrance wound on the body. Or one should not use the location of the bullet hole in the clothes to determine the location of the entrance wound on the body.



Your “Logical conclusion” about the head wound has a similar fallacy. The was two teams that estimated the position of the entrance wound. One team made an error in its estimate.

Your “Logical conclusion” would be logical if the Clark Panel said “Yes, we see the wound near the EOP, but there is a second wound near the cowlick”. But that didn’t happen. No team saw two different entrance wounds. They all see one entrance wound but just make a different estimate of its location.

[Joe Elliott]

Nope,

The chip of concrete that wounded James Tague most likely was sent flying by the jacket-less bullet that struck the curb near him as a result of Oswald's missed shot -- the shot he fired about 1.4 seconds before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133, which bullet lost its copper jacket when it glanced the traffic light's cross arm, thereby explaining how the metallic smear left behind on the curb had no trace of copper in it.

--  MWT 

I disagree with you and I think most people on this.

There was no chip of concrete that was sent flying from the curb. There was only a lead smear on the corner of the curb. That is something many people have agree on.

Click on the picture below to see the curb with the lead smear:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/smear.htm

And the lead smear was not caused by a bullet, in all probability. This is where I disagree with most people.

If it was caused by a bullet, how was it, by sheer coincidence, that a bullet just happened to hit directly on the corner of the curb. The odds are roughly 25 to 1, that the bullet fragment would strike right on the corner, and not an inch or two beyond it or below it. Or at least miss by a quarter of an inch. Such a coincidence should not be accepted if there is some other way the lead smear could have gotten on the location without a coincidence. If there was some way a lead object could have been guided precisely there. And there is such a way.

Thousands of cars pass this curb each day. If one of them drifted out of its lane, the tire would bump against the curb. The rim of the curb could guide a lead balancing weight precisely to the corner of the curb.

Indeed, in the picture of the curb which is now stored at the National Archives:



One can even see curved lines marking the curb. One of these curved lines point right at the lead smear.

Another coincidence? Or was this curved line made by the rim of a car’s tire, and the rim guided the lead balancing weight right to the corner where some of the lead was rubbed off.


Question for anyone:

How did the bullet fragment cause a curved mark on the curb that points right at the lead smear it made?

Or was this curve mark unrelated to the bullet and it just happens to point at the lead smear by coincidence. And the lead smear itself just happens to be on the corner of the curb, again, by coincidence.

[Michael Walton]

You may want to take a look at this. This is a photo illustration combining two photos. It may show the damage to the head when the scalp is in its normal position and when it's reflected. Note that it's a large animated GIF so may take a moment to load:

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Gj6op6Miask/XdfqNLPD_tI/AAAAAAAAFco/Jr-scSZf3lYN40rzcrRg-ePNBwbDkn1wQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/JFK-Back-of-Head-Animated.gif

[Bill Chapman]

"Logical conclusion"? LOL

Even the worst of contradictions are logical on the far shores of the lunatic fringe: Set the patsy up behind the limo and then claim Kennedy was shot from the front.

WOW

[John Iacoletti]

Let’s apply your logical to the bullet that wounded JFK in the back:

The autopsy photographs indicate the that wounded JFK hit the back, near C7/T1. However, the hole in JFK’s coat indicates an entrance wound that was a couple of inches lower.

Logical conclusion, that JFK was hit in the back by two different bullets. One which did not put a hole in the jacket but did cause an entrance wound. And a second bullet that caused an entrance wound, but did not put a hole in the jacket.

No, the logical conclusion is that one bullet put a hole in the jacket and caused the entrance wound in the back. The misalignment must have been caused by the coat riding up, which can be seen in some photographs taken just before JFK was wounded.

In other words, the discrepancy is caused by someone making an error in estimating the location of the bullet wound.

Or by someone making an error when he claimed that "the autopsy photographs indicate the that wounded JFK hit the back, near C7/T1."