Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory  (Read 20412 times)

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4277
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2023, 04:02:48 AM »
Advertisement
Without the SBT, the lone assassin narrative is dead in the water.

Not according to the Warren Commission!

There is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. However, Governor Connally’s testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability, but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President’s and Governor Connally’s wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

Sorry Royell, Try Again!

JohnM

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2023, 04:02:48 AM »


Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2023, 03:24:42 PM »
Not according to the Warren Commission!

There is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. However, Governor Connally’s testimony and certain other factors have given rise to some difference of opinion as to this probability, but there is no question in the mind of any member of the Commission that all the shots which caused the President’s and Governor Connally’s wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.

Sorry Royell, Try Again!

JohnM

    At one point in time, You played your cards from the Top of the deck. With the Knott Lab Laser 360 SCIENCE declaring, "SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE", you have not only been forced into SCIENCE DENIAL, but now you're employing subterfuge on top of that. You well know that there were member(s) of the WC that doubted the SBT. There is no disputing this FACT. Doubting the SBT would also then question More than 3 shots being fired. Your claiming blanket WC approval of, "ALL shots which caused the President's and Governor Connally's wounds were fired from the sixth-floor window.............." is pure   BS:: Stop besmirching yourself, pull yourself together, and get back, "on the wagon". You've fallen down. Way down!
« Last Edit: December 07, 2023, 03:26:45 PM by Royell Storing »

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2023, 06:04:59 PM »
The reality is, it only happened one way, listen closely, it only happened one way, and there are many eyewitnesses who saw the following.

"Many" eyewitnesses??? You mean a few eyewitnesses. A few people compared to the 30-plus eyewitnesses who reported seeing a large back-of-head wound. But you take the few over the vast majority. And you don't seem to care that some of your few witnesses originally said the large wound was in the back of the head.



But beyond these reliable, truthful, consistent eyewitnesses, don't forget that the following authentic, forensically reinforced, corroborating images are the most important pieces of evidence.

LOL! Uh, you'd better take another look at the small number of witness-demonstration photos in your graphic. Some of them do not agree with the autopsy photos' gaping, shredded wound above the right ear. And the demo photos contradict each other. Sheesh, look at your own photos. How did you miss these conflicts?

Furthermore, Zapruder was demonstrating where the impact explosion occurred. I guess you forgot that Zapruder said shots were being fired from behind him?

When a frangible HV bullet hits a skull, it causes an explosion at the point of impact.

The endlessly proven Zapruder film shows the same damage as seen in the Autopsy photo's

"Endlessly proven" in Lone-Gunman La La Land. Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was secretly diverted to a CIA-contracted photo lab in Rochester and then taken to NPIC in DC? Hey? What was going on here? Do you know what the two NPIC officials who commented on the film said about they saw in the film that they viewed? Any idea?

Why don't you take a stab at refuting my article on the evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film?

Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=sharing

The impossible to fake stereoscopic Autopsy photo's show the exact same wound as seen in the impossible to fake Zapruder film.

You are years behind the information curve. I take it you're unaware that at least two of the autopsy photos are not stereoscopic.

And, no, the autopsy photos do not show "the exact same wound" seen in the Zapruder film. You must be kidding.

The authenticated head X-Rays of Kennedy also shows the exact same damage.

Another howler. "Authenticated x-rays"? Huh, you mean the x-rays that show at least one-third of the brain missing on the right side? How do you square that with the autopsy brain photos, which Bugliosi even admitted show only "an ounce or two" of missing brain tissue? How do you square the virtually intact brain in the autopsy brain photos with the known fact that pieces of JFK's brain were splattered over much of the rear and middle seats of the limo, onto the windshields of two of the trailing patrolmen, and onto the windshield and front hood of the follow-up car? "An ounce or two"? That's fiction.

How about the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray? We now know from multiple optical density measurements that it is not metallic and that it was ghosted over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment on the outer table of the skull. The object does not appear on the lateral x-rays, a physical impossibility if the x-rays are pristine.

How about impossible white patch on the lateral x-rays? Nothing like it appears in any of JFK's pre-mortem x-rays, and nine other control x-rays likewise show no such impossibly bright white patch. The OD measurements show that if the white patch is authentic, JFK's skull was severely deformed, with bone running nearly from one side of the skull from that point to the other side, obviously an impossibility.

Even the unpolluted eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza who were interviewed within an hour or two all saw the precise same damage.

HUH??? How about Clint Hill?! Did you forget about him? He saw the wound close-up from about 15 seconds after the Z313 hit and for the next several minutes during the ride to Parkland Hospital. He saw the wound again in the ER at Parkland. And then he saw it again in the Bethesda morgue, and he went to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing and recording JFK's wounds. And, gee, what did he say about the large wound in his report on his 11/22/63 viewings of the wound? Hey? He said it was in the right-rear part of the head, as I documented in the OP.

I know Michael that you are desperate to believe a few doctors who never even touched the head wound, who were looking at an uncleaned bloody wound and only saw Kennedy's body without being turned over, yet some of these men described a neat punched out hole in the skull, is that even believable? Over the years I have looked at many many images of real life skull exit wounds and never ever have I seen the perfectly neat exit hole as described by McClelland, his description from the get go is fraught with contradictions, for instance on his first day report he describes a wound in the left temple, yes seriously!

Btw Michael, I know for a fact that you are too far gone and won't take any of this Rock Solid Evidence on board because basically you lack the technical knowledge  of the complexities of altering the visual record, but even if these undeniably indisputable facts can reach 1 "on the fence" reader I will be eternally happy!

JohnM

This is laughable.

"Saw the body without being turned over"??? Nurse Nelson and Nurse Bowron cleaned JFK's head and the rest of his body, packed the head wound with gauze squares, and wrapped the head in a sheet to prepare the body for placement in the casket! And funeral worker Aubrey Rike then helped put JFK's body into the casket and was holding JFK's head in his hands--and he repeatedly said that he could feel the edges of a large wound in the back of the head, the same back-of-head wound that mortician Tom Robinson saw and handled when he helped to reconstruct JFK's skull after the autopsy.

Let's take a look at just some of the eyewitness accounts of the back-of-head wound:

PHILIP C. WEHLE: then Commanding officer of the military District of Washington, D. C., he described the head wound to the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 8-19-77 He did not describe it to the Warren Commission. A copy of memo on Purdy's interview with Wehle was only released in 1993. Purdy reported that Wehle said he was an observer during the later stages of the autopsy. "(Wehle) noticed a slight bruise over the right temple of the President but did not see any significant damage to any other part of the head. He noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up...." (HSCA record # 10010042, agency file # 002086, p. 2)

KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78).

RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, "...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull". (WC-V6:56)

GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding." (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, "I assume the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head...". (WC-V6:67)

PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." (David Lifton, Best Evidence. p. 317) Peters repeated this speculation in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)

As if to emphasize the low location of the skull wound, Peters elaborated to Lifton, "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. Now I didn't put my hand inside his head and lift up the occipital lobes, because I wasn't about to do that under the circumstances... (but it) looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing." (David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 324)

When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)

Peters told author Livingstone that he and others closely examined JFK's skull wound. "...Dr. Jenkins commented that we'd better take a look at the brain before deciding whether to open the chest and to massage the heart with our hands, we stepped up and looked inside the skull and that's how I made note in my own mind of where the wound was in the skull." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters. Peters repeated this assertion in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)

When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw... It's to, (sic) in the rear and to the side, that's the parietal area. So it's in the back and the side of the head, I would say in laymen's terms." To eliminate any confusion as to what Peters meant, Livingstone asked, "The way I read it (Lifton's question to Peters regarding the location of the head wound), you're saying that the center of the gaping wound that you did see was 2.5 centimeters to the right of the occipital protuberance." Peters answered, "Well, I wouldn't say that was the center of it (the skull wound he saw). I would say that was about where it began. Yeah." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Paul Peters)

ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD: had just joined the staff of Parkland at the time of the assassination as an Instructor in Neurosurgery. He never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone, however, claim, "He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound...". (HT-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51)-& also Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.)

RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114). However, Dulaney told journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr., "...Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone."

KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern at Parkland at the time of JFK's death. In a Warren Commission interview with Arlen Specter, Salyer stated, "...(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region...I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) Salyer reported to author Aguilar that the wound was right sided but extended both posterior to and anterior to the ear. He repeated a claim made to Robert Groden that the photographs appeared to have been tampered with.

Note: Specter asked Salyer, "To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?" Salyer answered, "Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were occupied in making sure an I. V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood." Specter, "Is the--is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?" Salyer: "yes, he is a third-year resident. That's the reason I remember him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that." (Warren Commission, V6:81)

PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive." (Price Exhibit V21 H 216--Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head." (IBID)

DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)

NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON: greeted the limousine with a stretcher. She claimed, "...the back of his head...well, it was very bad--you know..." Arlen Specter failed to elucidate what she meant by the "back of the head" being very bad. (emphasis added) (WC V6:136:) Within 48 hours of the assassination the British press relayed a second hand account from Bowron through her mother: "...there was blood all over this neck and shoulders. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth , p. 180) Author Livingstone corresponded and spoke by phone with Bowron in 1993. He reported that Bowron claimed, "I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car. When we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about five inches in diameter and there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone. There was, however, some hair hanging down from the top of the head, which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 181) She also said, "...The hole was basically almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 190) When asked her opinion of the nature of the defect in the rear of the skull, Bowron told Livingstone, "Well, to me it was an exit hole." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 192) Livingstone asked, "Did you see any entry hole in the back of the head?". "I assumed and I still do that that was an exit wound." Bowron answered. (Killing the Truth , p. 195). Bowron prepared a drawing depicting the skull wound as she saw it for Livingstone which bears a striking similarity to the diagram of the wound prepared by Robert McClelland, MD and agreed to by Paul Peters, MD (High Treason in group of images following p. 23 in hard cover edition.) It shows a defect squarely in the occiput on the right side; a second diagram depicting the skull from above shows the right rear quadrant of the skull absent with the notation "missing". (Killing the Truth, in images following p. 368)

And, as I've already documented, Nurse Bowron told the WC that she saw a large wound in the back of JFK's head.

GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid, and was present with Kennedy in Dallas and traveled with the body to Bethesda. He described the head wound to author David Lifton (BE:430) in a recorded interview: "...he was in absolute perfect shape, except the back of the head, top back of the head, had an explosive bullet in it (sic) and was badly damaged..."

Later to clarify the point Lifton asked: "When you think of the head wounds, then, you think of, primarily, the top of the head, or primarily the back of the head? McHugh answered, "Both. Ninety-nine percent the back, the top back of the head... that's the portion that had been badly damaged by the bullet." (BE:432) Lifton, to leave no doubt about what was meant then asked McHugh to define the back of the head. McHugh answered: "The portion that is in the back of the head, when you're lying down in the bathtub, you hit the back of the head." (BE, p. 430)

SECRET SERVICE AGENT ROY KELLERMAN: under oath before the Warren Commission explained the head wound he saw to Arlen Specter, "He had a large wound this size." Specter: "Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches would that be approximately correct?" (sic) Kellerman: "Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head." Specter: "Indicating the rear portion of the head." Kellerman: "Yes." Specter: "More to the right side of the head." Kellerman: "Right. This was removed." Specter: "When you say, "This was removed", what do you mean by this?" Kellerman: "The skull part was removed." Specter: "All right." Kellerman: "To the left of the (right) ear, sir, and a little high; yes...(I recall that this portion of the rear portion of the skull) was absent when I saw him." (WC-V2:80- 81)

JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division at Bethesda, and was the radiologist who evaluated the X-rays in close cooperation with the autopsists on the night of the autopsy. He was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. However he was called to testify by the HSCA on March 11, 1978. Ebersole's deposition was not published by the HSCA causing it to be sealed for 50 years under congressional rules. (Due to pressure, however, the transcript of his interview was released in October, 1993.) A brief wire service account appeared regarding his appearance before the HSCA claiming that he agreed with the Warren Commissions' conclusions. However, in an interview with reporter Gil Dulaney published two days before his HSCA appearance Ebersole said of the head wound, "When the body was removed from the casket there was a very obvious horrible gaping wound to the back of the head (BE:543).", and "The front of the body, except for a very slight bruise above the right eye on the forehead, was absolutely intact. It was the back of the head that was blown off." (BE:546)

And we now know that Ebersole told the HSCA that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone, which agrees with Boswell's stunning revelation to the ARRB that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments. (Boswell said this to the HSCA FPP as well, but they ignored it.)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2023, 07:53:23 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2023, 06:04:59 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4277
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2023, 09:13:03 PM »
"Many" eyewitnesses??? You mean a few eyewitnesses. A few people compared to the 30-plus eyewitnesses who reported seeing a large back-of-head wound. But you take the few over the vast majority. And you don't seem to care that some of your few witnesses originally said the large wound was in the back of the head.

LOL! Uh, you'd better take another look at the small number of witness-demonstration photos in your graphic. Some of them do not agree with the autopsy photos' gaping, shredded wound above the right ear. And the demo photos contradict each other. Sheesh, look at your own photos. How did you miss these conflicts?

Furthermore, Zapruder was demonstrating where the impact explosion occurred. I guess you forgot that Zapruder said shots were being fired from behind him?

When a frangible HV bullet hits a skull, it causes an explosion at the point of impact.

"Endlessly proven" in Lone-Gunman La La Land. Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was secretly diverted to a CIA-contracted photo lab in Rochester and then taken to NPIC in DC? Hey? What was going on here? Do you know what the two NPIC officials who commented on the film said about they saw in the film that they viewed? Any idea?

Why don't you take a stab at refuting my article on the evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film?

Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YOK_7uLe49zgXADGQxkIH1dmaEcpyaWd/view?usp=sharing

You are years behind the information curve. I take it you're unaware that at least two of the autopsy photos are not stereoscopic.

And, no, the autopsy photos do not show "the exact same wound" seen in the Zapruder film. You must be kidding.

Another howler. "Authenticated x-rays"? Huh, you mean the x-rays that show at least one-third of the brain missing on the right side? How do you square that with the autopsy brain photos, which Bugliosi even admitted show only "an ounce or two" of missing brain tissue? How do you square the virtually intact brain in the autopsy brain photos with the known fact that pieces of JFK's brain were splattered over much of the rear and middle seats of the limo, onto the windshields of two of the trailing patrolmen, and onto the windshield and front hood of the follow-up car? "An ounce or two"? That's fiction.

How about the 6.5 mm object on the AP skull x-ray? We now know from multiple optical density measurements that it is not metallic and that it was ghosted over the image of the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment on the outer table of the skull. The object does not appear on the lateral x-rays, a physical impossibility if the x-rays are pristine.

How about impossible white patch on the lateral x-rays? Nothing like it appears in any of JFK's pre-mortem x-rays, and nine other control x-rays likewise show no such impossibly bright white patch. The OD measurements show that if the white patch is authentic, JFK's skull was severely deformed, with bone running nearly from one side of the skull from that point to the other side, obviously an impossibility.

HUH??? How about Clint Hill?! Did you forget about him? He saw the wound close-up from about 15 seconds after the Z313 hit and for the next several minutes during the ride to Parkland Hospital. He saw the wound again in the ER at Parkland. And then he saw it again in the Bethesda morgue, and he went to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing and recording JFK's wounds. And, gee, what did he say about the large wound in his report on his 11/22/63 viewings of the wound? Hey? He said it was in the right-rear part of the head, as I documented in the OP.

This is laughable.

"Saw the body without being turned over"??? Nurse Nelson and Nurse Bowron cleaned JFK's head and the rest of his body, packed the head wound with gauze squares, and wrapped the head in a sheet to prepare the body for placement in the casket! And funeral worker Aubrey Rike then helped put JFK's body into the casket and was holding JFK's head in his hands--and he repeatedly said that he could feel the edges of a large wound in the back of the head, the same back-of-head wound that mortician Tom Robinson saw and handled when he helped to reconstruct JFK's skull after the autopsy.

Let's take a look at just some of the eyewitness accounts of the back-of-head wound:

PHILIP C. WEHLE: then Commanding officer of the military District of Washington, D. C., he described the head wound to the HSCA's Andy Purdy on 8-19-77 He did not describe it to the Warren Commission. A copy of memo on Purdy's interview with Wehle was only released in 1993. Purdy reported that Wehle said he was an observer during the later stages of the autopsy. "(Wehle) noticed a slight bruise over the right temple of the President but did not see any significant damage to any other part of the head. He noted that the wound was in the back of the head so he would not see it because the President was lying face up...." (HSCA record # 10010042, agency file # 002086, p. 2)

KEMP CLARK, MD: Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland described the President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the skull... Through the head wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring... There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)

In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3 x 3 cm remnant of cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC V17:9-10)

At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said, "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White House with Wayne Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas) This virtually contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However, if JFK's skull defect were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have conjectured that the skull defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm Perry, MD, who participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a tracheotomy on JFK, had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of entrance.

In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63, Clark described the head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal region... Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report, p.518, Warren Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)

MALCOLM PERRY, MD: In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated, 11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." (WC--V17:6--CE#392) Describing Kennedy's appearance to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated, "Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium...." (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: "...I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue..." (WC--V3:372) In an interview with the HSCA's Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that "Dr. Perry... believed the head wound was located on the "occipital parietal" (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing..." (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr. Purdy: "I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum seen..." (HSCA-V7:302-interview with Purdy 1-11-78).

RONALD COY JONES: was a senior General Surgery resident physician at Parkland Hospital. Under oath he told the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, "...he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head... There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood." (WC-V6:53-54) A few minutes later he described "what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull". (WC-V6:56)

GENE AIKIN, MD: an anesthesiologist at Parkland told the Warren Commission under oath, "The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered with brain substance extruding." (WC-V6:65.) He later opined, "I assume the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head...". (WC-V6:67)

PAUL PETERS, MD: a resident physician at Parkland described the head wound to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter under oath as, "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71)

Peters told author Lifton on 11-12-66, "I was trying to think how he could have had a hole in his neck and a hole in the occiput, and the only answer we could think (of) was perhaps the bullet had gone in through the front, hit the bony spinal column, and exited through the back of the head, since a wound of exit is always bigger than a wound of entry." (David Lifton, Best Evidence. p. 317) Peters repeated this speculation in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)

As if to emphasize the low location of the skull wound, Peters elaborated to Lifton, "I'd be willing to swear that the wound was in the occiput, you know. I could see the occipital lobes clearly, and so I know it was that far back, on the skull. I could look inside the skull, and I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed to rest almost on the foramen magnum. Now I didn't put my hand inside his head and lift up the occipital lobes, because I wasn't about to do that under the circumstances... (but it) looked like the occipital lobes were resting on the foramen magnum. It was as if something underneath them, that usually kept them up from that a little ways, namely, the cerebellum and brainstem, might have been injured, or missing." (David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 324)

When shown enlarged Zapruder film frames depicting a right-anterior wound, Peters wrote, "The wound which you marked...I never saw and I don't think there was such a wound. I think that was simply an artifact of copying Zapruder's movie... The only wound I saw on President Kennedy's head was in the occipitoparietal area on the right side." (Personal letter to Wallace Milam 4-14-80, copy, courtesy of Wallace Milam to author Aguilar; also in Lifton, BE: 557)

Peters told author Livingstone that he and others closely examined JFK's skull wound. "...Dr. Jenkins commented that we'd better take a look at the brain before deciding whether to open the chest and to massage the heart with our hands, we stepped up and looked inside the skull and that's how I made note in my own mind of where the wound was in the skull." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Peters. Peters repeated this assertion in a speech on the subject on 4/2/92, in a talk entitled, "Who Killed JFK?", given at the 14th annual meeting of the Wilk-Amite Medical Society, at Centreville Academy, Centreville, Mississippi, according to a transcript furnished by Claude B. Slaton, of Zachary, Louisiana.)

When shown by author Livingstone the HSCA's Dox drawings of the rear of JFK's skull prepared to precisely replicate the photographs, Peters claimed, "Well, this is an artist's drawing, and I don't think that it's consistent with what I saw... It's to, (sic) in the rear and to the side, that's the parietal area. So it's in the back and the side of the head, I would say in laymen's terms." To eliminate any confusion as to what Peters meant, Livingstone asked, "The way I read it (Lifton's question to Peters regarding the location of the head wound), you're saying that the center of the gaping wound that you did see was 2.5 centimeters to the right of the occipital protuberance." Peters answered, "Well, I wouldn't say that was the center of it (the skull wound he saw). I would say that was about where it began. Yeah." (Transcript of Livingstone interview with Paul Peters)

ROBERT GROSSMAN, MD: had just joined the staff of Parkland at the time of the assassination as an Instructor in Neurosurgery. He never testified to the Warren Commission or the HSCA. Authors Groden and Livingstone, however, claim, "He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput, far too large for a bullet entry wound...". (HT-I Groden and Livingstone, p. 51)-& also Duffy & Ricci, The Assassination of John F. Kennedy--A Complete Book of Facts, p. 207-208.)

RICHARD BROOKS DULANEY, MD: was a first year general surgery resident at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination. He appeared before the Commission and claimed only, "...he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed." Arlen Specter did not ask him to elaborate and Dulaney did not volunteer any additional details.(WC-V:114). However, Dulaney told journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr., "...Somebody lifted up his head and showed me the back of his head. We couldn't see much until they picked up his head. I was standing beside him. The wound was on the back of his head. On the back side" They lifted up the head and "the whole back-side was gone."

KENNETH EVERETT SALYER, MD: was an intern at Parkland at the time of JFK's death. In a Warren Commission interview with Arlen Specter, Salyer stated, "...(JFK) had a wound of his right temporal region...I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound" (Warren Commission-V6:81) Salyer reported to author Aguilar that the wound was right sided but extended both posterior to and anterior to the ear. He repeated a claim made to Robert Groden that the photographs appeared to have been tampered with.

Note: Specter asked Salyer, "To what extent did Dr. Crenshaw participate?" Salyer answered, "Dr. Crenshaw participated about the extent that I did. We were occupied in making sure an I. V. was going and hanging up a bottle of blood." Specter, "Is the--is Dr. Crenshaw a resident?" Salyer: "yes, he is a third-year resident. That's the reason I remember him specifically because we were sort of working there together on that." (Warren Commission, V6:81)

PAT HUTTON, RN: a nurse at Parkland who met the limousine and helped to wheel the President into Trauma Room 1 wrote a report soon after claiming, "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head, and was lying there unresponsive." (Price Exhibit V21 H 216--Emphasis added). While helping with resuscitation efforts a physician asked her to apply a pressure dressing to the head wound, she observed, however, that, "This was no use, however, because of the massive opening in the back of the head." (IBID)

DORIS NELSON, RN: was a supervising nurse at Parkland. She was interviewed by Arlen Specter for the Warren Commission and she was neither asked or volunteered information regarding the nature of JFK's wounds. (WC-V6:143-147) As Groden and Livingstone reported, however, journalist Ben Bradlee, Jr. asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson: "A very good look...When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the HSCA autopsy photographs she reacted: "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (High Treason I. p. 454)

NURSE DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON: greeted the limousine with a stretcher. She claimed, "...the back of his head...well, it was very bad--you know..." Arlen Specter failed to elucidate what she meant by the "back of the head" being very bad. (emphasis added) (WC V6:136:) Within 48 hours of the assassination the British press relayed a second hand account from Bowron through her mother: "...there was blood all over this neck and shoulders. There was a gaping wound in the back of his head." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth , p. 180) Author Livingstone corresponded and spoke by phone with Bowron in 1993. He reported that Bowron claimed, "I first saw the large wound in the back of the head in the car. When we were preparing the body for the coffin I had the opportunity to examine it more closely. It was about five inches in diameter and there was no flap of skin covering it, just a fraction of skin along part of the edges of bone. There was, however, some hair hanging down from the top of the head, which was caked with blood, and most of the brain was missing. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole left fist inside." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 181) She also said, "...The hole was basically almost the size of a saucer, and sort of from the occiput. So there was quite a reasonable amount missing from the top as well." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 190) When asked her opinion of the nature of the defect in the rear of the skull, Bowron told Livingstone, "Well, to me it was an exit hole." (Livingstone, Killing the Truth, p. 192) Livingstone asked, "Did you see any entry hole in the back of the head?". "I assumed and I still do that that was an exit wound." Bowron answered. (Killing the Truth , p. 195). Bowron prepared a drawing depicting the skull wound as she saw it for Livingstone which bears a striking similarity to the diagram of the wound prepared by Robert McClelland, MD and agreed to by Paul Peters, MD (High Treason in group of images following p. 23 in hard cover edition.) It shows a defect squarely in the occiput on the right side; a second diagram depicting the skull from above shows the right rear quadrant of the skull absent with the notation "missing". (Killing the Truth, in images following p. 368)

And, as I've already documented, Nurse Bowron told the WC that she saw a large wound in the back of JFK's head.

GODFREY McHUGH: was President Kennedy's Air Force Aid, and was present with Kennedy in Dallas and traveled with the body to Bethesda. He described the head wound to author David Lifton (BE:430) in a recorded interview: "...he was in absolute perfect shape, except the back of the head, top back of the head, had an explosive bullet in it (sic) and was badly damaged..."

Later to clarify the point Lifton asked: "When you think of the head wounds, then, you think of, primarily, the top of the head, or primarily the back of the head? McHugh answered, "Both. Ninety-nine percent the back, the top back of the head... that's the portion that had been badly damaged by the bullet." (BE:432) Lifton, to leave no doubt about what was meant then asked McHugh to define the back of the head. McHugh answered: "The portion that is in the back of the head, when you're lying down in the bathtub, you hit the back of the head." (BE, p. 430)

SECRET SERVICE AGENT ROY KELLERMAN: under oath before the Warren Commission explained the head wound he saw to Arlen Specter, "He had a large wound this size." Specter: "Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches would that be approximately correct?" (sic) Kellerman: "Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head." Specter: "Indicating the rear portion of the head." Kellerman: "Yes." Specter: "More to the right side of the head." Kellerman: "Right. This was removed." Specter: "When you say, "This was removed", what do you mean by this?" Kellerman: "The skull part was removed." Specter: "All right." Kellerman: "To the left of the (right) ear, sir, and a little high; yes...(I recall that this portion of the rear portion of the skull) was absent when I saw him." (WC-V2:80- 81)

JOHN EBERSOLE, MD: was Assistant Chief of Radiology and head of the Radiology Division at Bethesda, and was the radiologist who evaluated the X-rays in close cooperation with the autopsists on the night of the autopsy. He was not called to testify before the Warren Commission. However he was called to testify by the HSCA on March 11, 1978. Ebersole's deposition was not published by the HSCA causing it to be sealed for 50 years under congressional rules. (Due to pressure, however, the transcript of his interview was released in October, 1993.) A brief wire service account appeared regarding his appearance before the HSCA claiming that he agreed with the Warren Commissions' conclusions. However, in an interview with reporter Gil Dulaney published two days before his HSCA appearance Ebersole said of the head wound, "When the body was removed from the casket there was a very obvious horrible gaping wound to the back of the head (BE:543).", and "The front of the body, except for a very slight bruise above the right eye on the forehead, was absolutely intact. It was the back of the head that was blown off." (BE:546)

And we now know that Ebersole told the HSCA that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone, which agrees with Boswell's stunning revelation to the ARRB that part of the EOP entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments. (Boswell said this to the HSCA FPP as well, but they ignored it.)

Yeah Clint Hill, thanks for reminding me, here he's demonstrating on what he saw because your self serving misinterpretation of his words has gone on for far too long.



And talk about even more misrepresentation, I see way more than a few eyewitnesses and all of the eyewitnesses are pointing to where they saw a wound and the Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses who from their perspective are pointing to where they saw the obvious dangling bone flap and the direction of the majority of exploding matter.





And here's some of your eyewitnesses who are clearly not demonstrating the exact location of the neat blow out hole as seen in McClelland's drawing. Oops!



and by the way how do you explain McClelland under oath declaring that while standing, he looked down into Kennedys wound? Double Oops!



Quote
You are years behind the information curve. I take it you're unaware that at least two of the autopsy photos are not stereoscopic.

Another pathetic Griffith tactic, first of all claim that a Griffith critic somehow is unaware of some obscure self indulgent recent revelation of which in this case are few and far between and secondly I never claimed that all the photos were in stereo pairs but the stereoscopic we have prove beyond all doubt that the back of head was intact and the top of head stereoscopic pair prove beyond all doubt the extent of the injury.





Quote
"Endlessly proven" in Lone-Gunman La La Land. Why do you suppose the Zapruder film was secretly diverted to a CIA-contracted photo lab in Rochester and then taken to NPIC in DC? Hey? What was going on here? Do you know what the two NPIC officials who commented on the film said about they saw in the film that they viewed? Any idea?

You know David Healey a supposed film alterationist expert and iirc was a consultant for a Fetzer Zapruder Fakery book/video. With the aid of modern computers and photoshop which by the way is light years ahead of the primitive techniques used at the time, he attempted a basic foreground cut out with a reinsertion Matte and this single frame looks like crap. A moving film is infinitely more difficult, then the compounding motion blur needs to be addressed which by the way is perfectly realized in the current Zapruder Film. You are so far out of your depth you need children floaties to keep your head above water.



Quote
Why don't you take a stab at refuting my article on the evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film?

Where you talk about the "impossible" movement of Brehm's son? A movement which I stabilized and is completely normal and furthermore at a point in the film where nothing happens? Give me a break!



So there you have it Ladies and Gentlemen, Girls and Boys, Griffith has tried to say that the key to this assassination was a literal Truckload of Fakery which by and large would be basically impossible even today but he wants us to believe that some "alien" technology back in the dark ages was behind it all. Wow just WOW!


JohnM
« Last Edit: December 07, 2023, 09:33:36 PM by John Mytton »

Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2023, 09:47:48 PM »

  SA Clint Hill continues perpetuating the LIE that the JFK Limo did Not Stop on its' way to Parkland Hospital. He has been consistently telling this LIE for Over 60 yrs now. Why would I believe anything this man says when he continues pitching this Company Lie. Anybody pushing a Company Lie is a Company Man. What else is he lying about? SA Clint Hill has Serious Credibility Issues.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2023, 09:47:48 PM »


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4277
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2023, 10:14:23 PM »
  SA Clint Hill continues perpetuating the LIE that the JFK Limo did Not Stop on its' way to Parkland Hospital. He has been consistently telling this LIE for Over 60 yrs now. Why would I believe anything this man says when he continues pitching this Company Lie. Anybody pushing a Company Lie is a Company Man. What else is he lying about? SA Clint Hill has Serious Credibility Issues.

We know that the Limo didn't stop in Dealey Plaza but what proof have you got that it stopped elsewhere and why?

Also relevant is the fact that according to many eyewitnesses the Limo got to Parkland which was at least five miles away, and Kennedy into the Emergency room within 10 minutes, do you think they had time to stop and what do you think they did, have a picnic?

JohnM

Offline Royell Storing

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2775
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2023, 10:30:35 PM »
We know that the Limo didn't stop in Dealey Plaza but what proof have you got that it stopped elsewhere and why?

Also relevant is the fact that according to many eyewitnesses the Limo got to Parkland which was at least five miles away, and Kennedy into the Emergency room within 10 minutes, do you think they had time to stop and what do you think they did, have a picnic?

JohnM

       Do you believe the JFK Limo stopped before reaching Parkland Hospital or not. Easy question. State your position and I'll respond.   

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4277
Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2023, 10:32:46 PM »
       Do you believe the JFK Limo stopped before reaching Parkland Hospital or not. Easy question. State your position and I'll respond.

Sorry it doesn't work like that, your claim your proof!

JohnM

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Eyewitness Accounts vs. the Lone-Gunman Theory
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2023, 10:32:46 PM »