I Know a lot of researchers are tired of talking about the medical and ballistics aspects of the assassination because of the confusing and contradictory nature of the evidence. But I choose not to view it all as some great unsolvable mystery. I believe we can make reasonable conclusions based on the what we have and without resorting to claims of alteration.
Lately, I've been revisiting the head wounds. For a long time I believed there was only one shot to the head. I've just finished writing a blog entry explaining the reasons why I've changed my mind: http://themysteriesofdealeyplaza.blogspot.co.uk/
How is it possible to reliably use these NON-ALTERED yet completely fraudulent medical records to determine the rest of shots?
As I understand it, the damage as described to the BASE of the skull appeared as if someone hit JFK with an ax... ( I must find the reference as I believe the damage descritpion was shown to specialists who concluded that the damage described was much more surgical in nature than a result of a bullet)
A FMJ thru and thru might have created the damage you describe... but this statement caught me by surprise: For me, this was extremely compelling because I could see no reason for Kellerman to have lied.
If Lifton and Horne are correct, Kellerman ran the Bethesda charade - running from the ambulance to the morgue at 6:55pm only to meet up with Greer, Sibert and O'Neill at 7:17 to offload the empty casket.
Yet none of this "officially" happened since the Casket was received at 8pm. Kellerman has JFK speaking. His "flurry" becomes two and only two shots much to his chagrin and Specter's delight.
I think you may have underestimated our man Kellerman and the extent of CHANGE to the head wound between 6:35 and 8:15. Yet even that does not remove from possibility what you offer as an interesting theory...
The fragments and dust in the brain area make a rear shot leaving THAT trail impossible... that MUST have entered the right front.
Check this composite out Martin... Boswell may have given away a little too much... the Vomer was crushed... a bone in the nose.
To the left on the diagram, the left of JFK's nose is a 3cm ?? (a horrible wound over the left eye?)
The 15x6mm hole as described by Boswell (wonder when THAT was done) becomes the 100x170mm hole
And didn't they say that the brain stem had been cut "surgincally" ?
Always a pleasure discussing with you Martin... I simply still believe that the only way to know the extent of the injuries is to stay with the experts & witnesses in Dallas..
Once KELLERMAN decides to take the body and restrict Rose... all bets are off. An honest government clears out a floor, brings in the experts and conducts a well documented and extensive autopsy in Dallas.
those that KNOW the best evidence will not match the predetermined conclusion behave otherwise.
my .02
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4846[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4845[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Good to see you're here too. Always a pleasure to read your detailed posts.
You wrote: "If Humes did what Reed/Robinson say he did....How is it possible to reliably use these NON-ALTERED yet completely fraudulent medical records to determine the rest of shots?"
I assume you're referring to Robinson's comment about Humes and Boswell enlarging the head wound and Reed saying that Humes used a saw? I'll be honest with you, David, I have absolutely no idea how Horne construed this as something sinister since enlarging the head wound was necessary to remove the brain which is a normal part of an autopsy. Of course the autopsy doctors altered the body. It's not possible to conduct an autopsy without doing so! Here's what Humes said in his WC testimony:
Dr. HUMES: ...To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skull by this injury.
We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it. (2H354)
We can see quite clearly in the above passage that Humes is talking about enlarging the head wound to get to the brain and mentions using a saw. He doesn't say they didn't use a saw as (IIRC) Horne alleges, he says they did VIRTUALLY no work with the saw. IOW a little work with the saw.
Horne and Lifton are not right. The body alteration hypothesis is baseless bullshit with absolutely no credible supporting evidence. So therefore Kellerman did not organize any "charade". If Kellerman was part of some cover-up why would he even mention hearing a flurry of shots let alone insisting to Specter that there had to be more than three? And why would he describe an exit in the rear instead of one on the right side which was what the official story called for?
I stand by what I wrote. I see no reason for Kellerman to have lied. And I see ZERO credible evidence of his involvement in any kind of hankey pankey at Bethesda.
With regard to the crushed Vomer, I would need to do more research on that point before I could make any informed comment as to what that suggests.
Yes indeed Martin... a normal part of the Autopsy... which began 45 minutes after the 2 R's saw what they did.
So are Kellerman/Greer/Sibert/O'Neill lying about the 7:17 entry onto the morgue's anteroom.... or the fact that these FBI agents told us they were removed from this room and NOT THERE until returning at 8pm?
I'm sorry to hear you taking such a strong stand against the alteration of the wounds to the head...
From my POV, All one need do is look at the visual descriptions of the wound in Dallas... I find it quite amazing that not a single doctor or nurse in Dallas... or mortician, or photo for that matter
matches with what the xrays and Boswell describes.
Given these xrays - you don't find it a bit odd that no one in Dallas saw the top of his head, or front, missing or damaged? and that the drawings of EVERYONE from Dallas matches the description of the first man to see the wound from less than 3 feet?
Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.
He took a 7 minute ride to Parkland... seems to me he was in a pretty good position to see what JFK's head looked like... and was the only one to DO anything...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4850[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4848[/ATTACH]
and this: which IMO, is the end result of Humes' work prior to whn ANYONE other than the fab 4 and these witnesses, knows that JFK is already there....
Wasn't it Stringer/Riebe (??) who carries xray film of JFK up for development as the limo remains out front, supposedly with him in it?
(I am completely open to PROOF that JFK was not in that morgue prior to 8pm... which is critical to your revised conclusion....
by the way, have you ever shown the wound descriptions to a disinterested yet qualified third party for explanation?)
Cheers
DJ
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4849[/ATTACH]
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
What about the fact though that Humes' report talks about particles in the brain beginning at the EOP and extending upward. Then when Gunn showed this the x rays and asked him to point out where they were, he could not do so. Because they are not there today.
If they were there, then the lines Ebersole put on the x rays could indicate where they needed to be. Especially since Ebersole was a radiologist.
Very interesting observations you put in there about the Z film. I had not noted that everyone moved forward just a bit at that one instant.
Is it not amazing that we are still arguing about this stuff 50 years later. With Humes dead.
I have not found so much of that historic malaise you mention as I had expected. Only today the radiologist listened to me describe the work of David Mantik, and the Ordeal by Public Humiliation and Private Threat suffered by Dr. Malcolm Perry.
Here is Mantik's placement of the Harper Fragment with an inshoot prior to the frontal entry. L marks the rear shot (from Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4851[/ATTACH]
I am aware that this wound of the autopsists 1) was not located by them for the ARRB (Humes was hydrophobic); 2) was raised by the fiat of the Clark panel four inches/ten centimeters in a vain attempt to match the stream of fragments from the frontal bone wound.
David
Your John Hunt series of photos from NARA 2003 may show radial fracturing from that very spot, the one Humes incised to disguise--oh, wait.
Surely a dum-dum entered there, and proceeded to exit where Robert Groden's eighty-one (81) witnesses say, in the right occipitoparietal exuding cerebellar and cerebral tissue.
Was there a shooter in the Depository West or the Dal-Tex who might've caused a wound where the three say (where Boswell drew).
We might ask why no mention at Bethesda by the officers of what their muzzled enlisted (and all the four score) saw.
So many reasons why the official x-rays and photographs are simply unbelievable.
We may agree that the significant shot was the frontal and its devastation.
The occipitoparietal inshoot could not be identified by the official medicos in photo or x-ray evidence.
Why would the most important shot of the conspiracy not be paraded as widely as those wonderful backyard photos.
The powers that be, possessing irrefutable proof of Oswald's guilt, are to this day unable to make their case.
If the likes of Specter and Dulles and Hoover could not do it, can it be that such a wound did not exist.
The full power of the Federal government which immediately and seamlessly shifted to a war footing could not produce the single most important wound of Twentieth Century.
I have always wondered why it would have been even necessary to alter the body. All they had to do was falsify the autopsy report to fit the desired scenario, which they did, falsify the X rays and photos, which they did, and swear all witnesses to secrecy, which they did. Reading the interviews and depositions of the various autopsy witnesses is like Rashomon. No one tells a consistent story, they have different recollections of time lines, and what they saw. One claimed the body was brought in in the early afternoon and was fully clothed with the head wrapped in a plastic bag. I would love to find one witness there, who saw a shipping casket delivered at 6:35, taken immediately into the morgue proper, opened, a body bag taken out, the president's body, removed from the body bag, and placed on the examining table. I don't believe there is one person who testifies to having seen all of this. For me the most compelling testimony is of the two FBI agents. As O'Neill himself pointed out they were the only ones there with no agenda. They were simply recording what they saw and heard with little understanding of it's implications.
Boswell described the EOP wound during his ARRB interview:
Q. Let's go back, if we could, to the location of the entrance wound in the skull. Could you tell me whether the entrance wound that you identified in the skull was something that appeared like a puncture in a bone with the remainder of the bone surrounding the hole? Or did the hole break off such that you would need other pieces of bone to be brought into place to show the entire
Page 81
periphery of the wound? I'm not sure that question made--
A. Yes, I understand it, and I think--I think maybe photographs that we have explain it. I believe that there was an area of bone intact down here that we could attach this to.
Q. Let me just state for the record you're referring now to the second page of Exhibit 1, and when you say "this," you're referring to the small fragment at the bottom of the page. Is that correct? A Yes.
Q. Okay.
A. And the beveling is such on both the wound here--or the remaining bone that is someplace in this area, but not shown in this diagram, and in this piece which, when put there, shows the approximate dimensions of the wound, and the beveling on the bone shows entrance and exit.
Boswell said that the once the two pieces were put back together the beveling of the bone showed both entrance and exit. Could it be possible that the wound near the EOP indicated the same tangential wound that Dr. Kemp Clark first described in Parkland?
I look at it simply. The surgery Humes called attention to was done at the pre-autopsy. This covert surgery altered the frontal wound Crenshaw witnessed. Pitzer most-likely video-ed this procedure, which is why Dennis David was able to see the frontal wound so clearly in an extracted frame. The CIA/military bastards who did this cover-up were in such a rush that they forgot Pitzer had installed remote filming equipment in the autopsy room at Bethesda. I find Horne and Lifton quite valid on this.
