Cowlick, low EOP ... or perhaps front?

[Lance Payette]

I will admit, the technical debate over JFK's wounds mostly just makes my eyes glaze over. Things like Mantik's books end up being a waste of money for me. However, the debate over the rear entrance wound has once again reared its ugly head (pun?) on the Ed Forum. I was inspired last night to read Pat Speer's extensive Chapter 13 on this subject (and I do mean extensive) and remain perplexed. I think I know the technical arguments, but just at the 30,000-foot level aren't others kind of astonished that:

1. There could still be debate as to where the rather large Harper fragment "fits."

2. The autopsy doctors, charged with actually examining the head-shot entrance, could have made a 4" mistake. Four inches?

I have a hard time believing a transmission mechanic could make a 4" mistake, and Speer's documentation of the Church Committee's and HSCA's "shift" is quite convincing. The "enhancement" of the red smudge by Ida Dox is beyond suspicious. I have a hard time believing the red smudge in the cowlick is an entrance wound in the very center of a skull. And, yes, I have a hard time believing the EOP hole posited by Speer and others, if fired from the TSBD, could have caused the massive flap wound over the ear.

Just intuitively, I think I could easier believe the massive head wound was purely tangential - front or rear, as you like - and neither the red smudge nor the EOP is actually a bullet hole.

I see that DVP thinks the placement of the ruler is conclusive that it's pointing out the red smudge as the entrance wound, while others, at least at the Ed Forum, strongly disagree. Could it not be pointing out the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the large wound itself, rather than the red smudge? If it were pointing out the entrance wound, why did the autopsy doctors then place it 4" lower?

[David Von Pein]

I see that DVP [HERE and HERE] thinks the placement of the ruler is conclusive that it's pointing out the red smudge as the entrance wound, while others, at least at the Ed Forum, strongly disagree. Could it not be pointing out the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the large wound itself, rather than the red smudge?

Huh? What do you mean? There is no "large wound" visible in this autopsy photo below at all....so how could the ruler in the picture be "pointing out" any of the dimensions of the large wound (which, of course, was located on the right/front/top part of JFK's head, not in the rear of the head?

If it [the ruler] were pointing out the entrance wound, why did the autopsy doctors then place it 4" lower?

That's one of the questions we'll probably never be able to completely answer, along with this related question:

Why on Earth didn't any of the three autopsy surgeons (Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck) make note of the precise "north/south" measurement of where the bullet entry wound was located on JFK's head? Just saying the wound was "slightly above" the EOP is not nearly precise enough and has caused only further confusion and controversy concerning the President's wounds.

It seems particularly odd to me that the vertical (north/south) measurement for that head entrance wound was not fully documented, since the lateral (east/west) measurement was specifically measured from a body landmark and noted in the autopsy report ("approximately 2.5 centimeters"). And 10 centimeters (or 100 millimeters, which is four inches) is 4 times as great a distance when compared to just 2.5 centimeters.

It makes no sense to me that the much larger north/south measurement was not noted or documented by the autopsy team, but the much smaller lateral distance was noted in the autopsy report. And we must remember that the Clark Panel in 1968, after viewing the original autopsy photographs and X-rays, confirmed that the entry wound in JFK's head was in fact located 4 inches above the EOP (see the Clark Panel excerpt below). Many CTers, of course, think the four-man Clark Panel was full of nothing but feces (and deliberate lies) when they wrote the following words:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. 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 [X-rays] 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." -- Via the 1968 Clark Panel Report

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html

[David Von Pein]

This seems like a good time to replay the following exchange I had with Pat Speer from ten years ago, in June of 2015:

PAT SPEER SAID:

There is a red oval in the back of the head photo that resembles a gunshot wound. But it was quite clearly not the bullet wound identified at the autopsy. You seem to think it is...

DVP SAID:

Pat,

Okay, I'll stop you right there. You readily acknowledge the fact that the "red oval" in the autopsy photograph "resembles a gunshot wound".

So, here's a simple observation and what I think is a very logical (and basic) question to ask after reading your quote above....

Since there is a spot on the back of JFK's head that DOES look like it could be a bullet hole---and since we both KNOW for a fact that there WAS, indeed, one single bullet hole of entry on the back side of President Kennedy's head---then what do you suppose the chances are of the thing that "resembles a gunshot wound" in the autopsy photo really NOT being a bullet hole in JFK's head after all?

Seems like a fair question to me. And I don't think it's a question that can be reasonably answered in the following manner (as some CTers and LNers seem to want to do).....

Well, DVP, the red spot only LOOKS like a bullet hole. The REAL bullet hole is hiding somewhere else in that autopsy picture. It's just a coincidence that the red spot (of blood?) in the photo just happened to take the form and general shape and appearance of a bullet hole. Whereas the REAL bullet hole, which cannot be seen at all in the picture (or at least most people have a hard time seeing it, except perhaps Patrick J. Speer) has decided to go AWOL from the photo, with no "redness" or other qualities to it at all that can be easily noticeable, even though that photo was taken under very good (and bright) lighting conditions. ~shrug~

[End Silly Explanation.]

So I'm just trying to wrap my head around the notion that the thing that looks like the bullet hole in the back of JFK's head really isn't a bullet hole at all. But at the same time, there really is a bullet hole of entrance somewhere else on the back of JFK's head in the BOH photograph.

What an amazing piece of unintentional and miraculous photographic misinterpretation that would turn out to be indeed, if it is to be believed. And, amazingly, Pat Speer (and many other CTers and LNers) actually do believe in it. I, however, cannot stretch unbelievable coincidence quite that far.

The red spot, in my opinion, is definitely the bullet hole.

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-954.html

[Steve M. Galbraith]

David: Peter Cummings examined the original materials - he says the x-rays and photos are much clearer than the ones we can see - and he concluded that the bullet entered lower in the head, near the EOP and not the cowlick. He concluded, among other things, that the fractures in the skull radiate from that lower entrance location and that if the entrance was the higher cowlick that those fractures would have also been higher. That bullet hole may been where it entered the scalp (as we can see) but it's not where it entered the skull, e.g., the scalp was pulled up higher making the entrance appear higher. That's hard to believe.

As for me: I am completely confused and lost on this one.

Here's his interpretation:

[Lance Payette]

Notwithstanding what Pat Speer said at one point, I don't think the red smudge looks like a bullet hole into the skull at the cowlick area at all. On the Ida Dox drawing, yes. But isn't that why CTers have such a problem with this? Why would the Church Committee and HSCA been so eager - suspiciously eager - to move the wound higher except to bolster the SBT? It does seem distinctly odd. As for my admitted pure guess that perhaps the ruler was showing the dimensions of the massive wound, it would be a better fit - if a fit at all - for those who insist the wound was a gaping hole at the back as some Parkland witnesses suggest. I have a really hard time with "No, they are carefully showing the red smudge even though the doctors said it was 4" lower."

[David Von Pein]

David: Peter Cummings examined the original materials - he says the x-rays and photos are much clearer than the ones we can see - and he concluded that the bullet entered lower in the head, near the EOP and not the cowlick.

Well, the HSCA's FPP said something totally different, as did the Clark Panel. Both of those panels concluded that the entry wound was in the cowlick, and those panels certainly were looking at the "original materials", just like Peter was.

That bullet hole may been where it entered the scalp (as we can see) but it's not where it entered the skull, e.g., the scalp was pulled up higher making the entrance appear higher. That's hard to believe.

It's just about impossible to believe, IMO. I went many rounds with author John Canal several years ago regarding that exact "Scalp Pulled Up" issue you mentioned. If you're really bored and have nothing else to read (not even the phone book), you can always bore yourself some more by having a look at my 26-part "BOH Talk" series, here:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

[David Von Pein]

Notwithstanding what Pat Speer said at one point, I don't think the red smudge looks like a bullet hole into the skull at the cowlick area at all. On the Ida Dox drawing, yes. But isn't that why CTers have such a problem with this? Why would the Church Committee and HSCA been so eager - suspiciously eager - to move the wound higher except to bolster the SBT? It does seem distinctly odd. As for my admitted pure guess that perhaps the ruler was showing the dimensions of the massive wound, it would be a better fit - if a fit at all - for those who insist the wound was a gaping hole at the back as some Parkland witnesses suggest. I have a really hard time with "No, they are carefully showing the red smudge even though the doctors said it was 4" lower."

So, Lance, do you think the 4 Clark Panel doctors were just lying through their collective teeth when they said the wound was 100mm above the EOP (via the quote I provided earlier)?

[Lance Payette]

So, Lance, do you think the 4 Clark Panel doctors were just lying through their collective teeth when they said the wound was 100mm above the EOP (via the quote I provided earlier)?

I think I would agree with Pat Speer that there was a high likelihood they were agenda-driven for the reasons he lays out in his Chapter 13. I simply find it inconceivable that (1) doctors dealing with the actual body would have been wrong by 4+ inches, and (2) the photos with the ruler would have been intended to pinpoint the location of a bullet wound if the doctors had decided the wound was 4+ inches lower. Beyond that, I make no claims and have no answers.