What exactly is this remark by Mrs. Kennedy supposed to prove? Please describe exactly what Mrs. Kennedy meant by that comment and please explain how I am calling her a liar by saying that a large part of the brain matter was blown out of Kennedy's head.
You say that I am "misrepresenting" the evidence? Look what you just did. You didn't include the things I said *AFTER* I said what you quoted above, which answers your question. The brain was coming out of the hole on the top of his head. Not the rear or side of the head as conspiracy believers contend-- the TOP, just as the autopsy photos of the top of the head reveal, as well as what we see flying off the top of JFK's head in the 3 films I mentioned.
I'm not sure how we got here, because I can not recall saying anything about the location of the wound. I also never claimed anything that implied Mrs Kennedy was lying. I'm also not sure what you mean by "the brain was coming out of the hole" when infact the brain matter was blasted out of the wound when the bullet hit.
And regardless of where the massive wound was, it wouldn't have been possible for O'Connor or anybody else to open up the top of the head, to remove the brain, because, the autopsy X rays show pieces of the skull missing and other parts being broken in smaller pieces. It seems to me you are reading far more into Mrs. Kennedy's words than is justified by the evidence.
Secondly, Even Clint Hill said"the brain was exposed" to the Warren Commission.
Again, what do you think this remark proves? Hill said he saw a big hole in the President's head, so naturally the brain would be exposed, but do you really think Hill was able to have a closer look while hanging on the trunk of the limo?
Again, you're misrepresenting the facts, not I. Hill didn't remain on the trunk of the car the entire trip to Parkland. He climbed into the back seat on the way to Parkland. Photographs, and testimony prove this. This is how Hill could have easily had a closer look once he was inside the car. There's even one picture taken on Stemmons where he is standing on the seat looking down into the seat compartment. It's included in the book "The Torch Is Passed". Look at all the pictures and film showing Hill inside the vehicle. So, in answer to your question, it proves that the brain--other than the right hemisphere being badly damaged was intact and still in the head.
How you can get from "Hill
could have easily had a closer look once he was inside the car" to the conclusion that it somehow "proves that the brain --other than the right hemisphere being badly damaged was intact and still in the head" is completely beyond me.
Thirdly, According to Dr. Michael Baden--and you can read this in the End Notes of Reclaiming History by Bugliosi--that there wasn't that much of the brain missing. I can't recall exactly at the moment, but he said it was only a few ouces of the actual brain that was missing.
Baden wasn't present at Parkland Hospital and/or the autopsy. His opinion is of little consequence.
He was a pathologist--same as Dr. Wecht--as well as a member of the panel of experts who re-examined the autopsy photos and other medical records for the HSCA. Therefore, he would have been able to determine from the records kept during the autopsy of JFK how much brain tissue was blasted off the brain. You cannot overlook Biden's credentials, nor what he stated he saw.
That's an appeal to authority fallacy. Nobody questions his credentials, but as far as what he saw; he only saw autopsy photos and medical records and based his opinion on that. So, in order to accept his opinion as authoritative you first have to authenticate the photos and records he was presented with. Also, as far as I know, there are no photos of the actual brain that, according to the official narrative, was removed from Kennedy's head. Nor are there any photos of the cranial vault after the brain was removed and there most certainly is no way of telling how much of the brain matter was left behind on Elm Street after having been blown out. This means that the HSCA experts could only
guess how much of the brain was actually left when the autopsy began.
What we are discussing here is the discrepancy between official narrative on the one hand and the statements of several people who were present at the autopsy who say something different. To have that discussion, it is pointless to rely on the opinion of somebody who has only seen photos and records which themselves are being questioned. The mere fact that Baden agreed with the official narrative and based his conclusions on that does not prove that the official narrative is correct.
With Paul O'Conner...I think you should read Reclaiming History, and watch and listen to his testimony during the Mock Trial with Vince Bugliosi and Gerry Spence.
I'm not really interested in Bugliosi's opinion. And I did watch O'Connor's testimony during the mock trial. In fact, the video is posted in my previous post. I'm not sure what you think I am supposed to see. If you want to call O'Connor, and others, a liar, you should at least try to answer my question about what his/their motivation would have been to lie.
I'm not surprised that you're not interested in Bugliosi's opinion. The reason I said you should watch Bugliosi questioning O'Conner was so you can hear O'Conner's answers to Bugliosi's responses to O'Conner's claims. And the reason I believe that a lot of the people who have come forward (those discovered by David Lifton especially) saw a chance to receive attention by the media and conspiracy believers. Some of them are outrageous stories. People having an opportunity of seeing their names up in lights will go to any lengths sometimes, to keep --in this case--the "conspiracy" going. It's very unfortunate.
I'm not surprised that you're not interested in Bugliosi's opinion.I am not interested in any book that either supports or questions the official narrative. Each of those books merely represents the opinion of the author(s), and that includes Bugliosi's book as well. The mock trial video shows that Bugliosi accepts the official narrative, including the autopsy, which means that all his opinions are based on that narrative.
The reason I said you should watch Bugliosi questioning O'Conner was so you can hear O'Conner's answers to Bugliosi's responses to O'Conner's claims.I did watch it. And I clearly come to a different conclusion than you do.
And the reason I believe that a lot of the people who have come forward (those discovered by David Lifton especially) saw a chance to receive attention by the media and conspiracy believers. That's the usual LN position when anybody says anything that does not compute with the official narrative. O'Connor did not seek any media attention. In the late seventies he testified to the HSCA, let David Lifton interview him and appeared on the mock trial. As far as I know, that's it.
Tom Robinson, one of the embalmers, who confirmed what O'Connor had seen, wanted nothing to do with the media. He gave a statement to the HSCA and remained anonymous for many years. In 2006 a Dutch TV Crime reporter wanted to interview Robinson. It took them months to track him down and several more months before he agreed to the interview.
Those are not the actions of men who wanted to receive media attention.
The heaviest of the head matter went forward onto the Connallys, Greer, Kellerman, the interior of the limousine, seats, the inside side panels side rails, windshield, sun visors (both sides) hood, and minute particles on the trunk lid. This is all noted in the notes and sketches by FBI agent Robert Frazier who had the tediosu job along with another (unamed) agent of sifting through every inch of the limousine, inside and out.
Frazier only examined the limo, by itself, at the Secret Service garage in Washington. There is no question that brain matter was scattered over the car and when one views the limo alone it can easily seem that most of the matter went forward, but without examining the Secret Service car and the two motorcycles that would be a conclusion based upon incomplete. information.
According to this Frazier interview on Youtube, Frazier was with two other men:
Yes, Frazier was with two other FBI agents, but that's not what I meant when I said that he examined the limo,
by itself.
What I meant was that he never examined the Secret Service car or the two DPD motorcycles, nor did he examine any evidence left behind at Elm Street. When you look at the limo, by itself, you only see the blood spatter and brain matter that actually remained in the car and as Kennedy was sitting in the back, the conclusion would always be that the blood and brain matter went forward into the car.
Btw in the video Frazier said that "we found some lead particles" but - although I don't think he wanted to mislead, he probably simply wasn't precise enough - that's not completely true. Yes, the limo yeilded some bullet fragments, but it wasn't Frazier and his men who found them. Before Frazier arrived at the Secret Service garage, the limo had already been searched by two men at the instruction of the Agent in charge. They gave the fragments to Frazier when he arrived and told him that they came from the limo. That's why there are no photographs of the fragments in situ.
