index
The Back Of The Head Debates - The Rear Flap I
Since I never seem to have the time or the mental capacity nowadays to put together a coherent
exposition of my views on the 'back of the head' debate, I have gathered together a motley collection of newsgroup
posts (some partially cut..) on the subject which, taken together, should provide an ansight into what I consider
to be 'the answers'.
The letters McC (for McClelland) identify the fracture that
functioned as a hinge for a bone flap that could swing either
open or closed. This movement has been the cause of much confusion
about the status of the occiput: when the flap was open (as at Parkland)
it produced an orange sized hole at the tight rear, but when closed
(as on the frontal X-ray) it seemed that there was no major hole at
the right rear. I have named this hinge after McClelland, who actually
described the bone flap. This fracture is also visible on the frontal X-ray.
Mantik, MIDP p 282.
.....................................
" But the scalp was lacerated, & a pretty good sized piece of the frontal
& right occipital portion of the skull had separated and were stuck to
the undersurface of the scalp. "
Boswell, interviewed by Livingstone , HT2, p196
> Aguilar says:
>
> "The photographs and X-rays indicate the major exit wound on the scalp and
> skull to be largely forward on the right side, possibly extending as far
> forward as a centimeter or so anterior to the coronal suture - just about
> the edge of the hairline at the top of the forehead."
>
> Aguilar's claim (as I understand it) is that the 44 witnesses describe a
> wound which is very different, largely occipital and extending somewhat
> towards the top of the head.
Some have the wound temporal (colloquial) on the rhs, some have it on top of
the head.
It's true that the majority put the opening they saw somewhere to the right
rear, as in occipital/parietal , above & behind the right ear.
Interestingly the official examinations of the xrays show that the entire
right parietal and the rear half of the right frontal were both either
entirely missing or fragmented (ie in discrete disconnected chunks).
So there's no essential contradiction with the Parkland witnesses ...*if*
the right rear skull was present, but swinging somewhat in the breeze.
Otherwise you have to conclude either that they were all mistaken (this
includes the brain surgeon) or the xrays are somehow forged. (Not as easy as
it sounds).
The former position is taken by the LN's and the latter by the CT's.
(Broadly speaking).
As I read them, the witnesses you quote --
> as well as a random sample of the rest of Aguilar's witnesses, many of
> whom are much more clear than your sample -- are fully compatible with the
> description of the wound Aguilar is advocating, and largely incompatible
> with Aguilar's description of the X-rays and photographs.
The body was autopsied some hours later.
The scalp was peeled back.
The area of lost bone noted. (Not very well noted ...but noted).
It's concievable that a lot of the damage to the head just wasn't apparent
at Parkland.
His head was a mass of blood clots and extruding brain.
The scalp covered much of the area in question.
>
> You wrote:
>
> "The "posterior top of the skull" is exactly what the autopsy photos and
> x-rays show to be missing."
The xrays & photos show the anterior top of the skull missing also.
John has to jive a little on this as he's basically arguing with a
neurosurgeon who saw the head in question. (amongst many others).
On the other hand, if the neurosurgeon is right, the xrays are forged.
Unless, once again, you suppose that although there was a hole at the right
rear it was still 'closeable' ....ie was an open *flap* of scalp & skull
which was closed up at the time the xrays were taken.
>
> So are you really arguing about what the witnesses saw, or are you arguing
> about what the x-rays and photographs show?
John is arguing with the witnesses, in this case.
In a few days he'll get on to Kemp Clark, whose qualifications follow:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
Mr. Specter.
Will you outline in a general way your educational background, please?
Dr. Clark.
Yes. I graduated from the University of Texas in Austin, 1944. I graduated
from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston in 1948. I interned
at Indiana University Medical Center and was a resident in surgery there
from 1948 to 1950. I spent 2 years in the Air Force and then took my
residency in neurological surgery at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New
York City. This was from 1953 to 1956, at which time I came to the
University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, as chairman of the
division of neurological surgery.
Would you like the professional qualifications?
Mr. Specter.
Yes; may I have the professional qualifications in summary form, if you
will, please.
Dr. Clark.
I am beard certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery. I am a
Fellow with the American College of Surgeons. I am a member of the Harvey
Cushing Society.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////////////////////////
Clark stated: (WC Hearings)
"I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a
large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and
cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed."
And in respons to a question about the back wound:
." Such a wound could have easily been overlooked in the presence of the
much larger wound in the right occipital region of the President's skull,
from which considerable blood loss had occurred which stained the back of
his head, neck and upper shoulders."
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////////////////////////////
John's argument will be that the neurosurgeon couldn't have seen the back of
the head, so was presumably just throwing in a wild guess about it being
'occipital'.
I don't find this very convincing.
PS.
>
> -Jerry Russell
>
>
>
All are agreed the xrays were taken at the start of the autopsy. (~ 8pm) The
'late arriving' frags arrived around midnight.
The rear of the head is all present on the xrays.
(Oversimplification, but you see what I mean).
The only way to 'forge' this would be to somehow superimpose an xray image
of the presumed 'late arriving' occipital frag onto the existing head xray,
and get it to fit perfectly, no anomalies of contrast, shape,
orientation.....
I won't bore you with my imperfect understanding of the details, but I think
it's as close to an impossible task as you could set yourself.
The guy who *took* the head xrays says they *are* the xrays he took.
There are 101 other horribly technical reasons which I have heard from
various sources. I could try to dig out the details if you want.
David Mantik has proposed a method that *might* suffice to add a discrete
chunk of density to a copy of an xray.
What you propose is a much more subtle ,not to say artistic, venture.
If there's a simpler alternative to xray alteration, I'd go for it.
>
> If we can absolutely determine that the x-rays are incompatible with the
> witness testimony, or if we conclude from other analysis that the x-rays
> were forged (as Fetzer claims to have done at assassinationscience.com)
> then doesn't it follow that these forged x-rays are material evidence that
> a conspiracy took place?
Sure. That's what has happened.
LN = Parkland doctors all idiots.
CT= xrays forged.
Take your pick. Unless there *is* a way to explain how "Parkland saw a hole
that ain't there on the xrays" *without* having to suppose the xrays are
faked up.
There is.
I scratched my head about it for a long long time.
(Incidentally I started from a 'xrays forged' POV, and I couldn't really
care less who shot JFK, aside from curiosity about it)
If the hole at the right rear was in fact a *flap* hanging open (akin to the
flap at the right front)....then all the problems vanish.
No need for blind idiotic neurosurgeons *or* faked xrays.
By means of a simple flap of skull bone.
>
> > The xrays & photos show the anterior top of the skull missing also. John
> > has to jive a little on this as he's basically arguing with a
neurosurgeon
> > who saw the head in question. (amongst many others). On the other hand,
if
> > the neurosurgeon is right, the xrays are forged. Unless, once again, you
> > suppose that although there was a hole at the right rear it was still
> > 'closeable' ....ie was an open *flap* of scalp & skull which was closed
up
> > at the time the xrays were taken.
>
> So if there were an open flap which was closed up, what would be the
> implications for the ballistics analysis? As I read it, the eyewitness
> testimony from Parkland is completely incompatible with the theory that
> the damage to Kennedy's skull was caused by a single bullet fired from the
> TSBD.
Okay. According to Seatons General Theory Of The Headwound:
The headwound was explosive. All agreed. Doesn't mean an explosive bullet
had to be used. Just means that the head is a fluid filled closed cavity.
Entering bullet cracks & weakens rear skull. Cavitation sends pressure thru
roof. Weakened skull experiences last straw and something gives. Any
weakened area liable to blow out. Head basically blows up. Bullet exits.
Ouch.
One of the weakened areas was the right rear. It blows out..a little.. but
the skull & scalp basically hang on . The right front blows out. The release
of pressure (like taking your radiator cap off) sends brain flying
everywhere.
In other words , the Parkland testimony is not incompatible with anything.
The disadvantage of holding this theory is that *all* sides hate it, CT's
marginally more than LN's.
I hope this wasn't too tedious to plough through. I kind of enjoyed
expounding.
PS.
>
> -Jerry
>
>
>
..............................
John McAdams <John.McAdams@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:39a712fc.6959252@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 22:45:50 +0100, "Paul Seaton"
> <paulseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
>
> >.......................
> >Jerry Russell <jerryr@san.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:39A6AE46.83876E83@san.rr.com...
> >> Thanks, Paul, for your response.
> >>
> >
> >Okay. According to Seatons General Theory Of The Headwound:
> >
> >The headwound was explosive. All agreed. Doesn't mean an explosive bullet
> >had to be used. Just means that the head is a fluid filled closed cavity.
> >Entering bullet cracks & weakens rear skull. Cavitation sends pressure
> >thru roof. Weakened skull experiences last straw and something gives.
> >Any weakened area liable to blow out. Head basically blows up. Bullet
> >exits. Ouch.
> >
> >One of the weakened areas was the right rear. It blows out..a little..
but
> >the skull & scalp basically hang on . The right front blows out. The
> >release of pressure (like taking your radiator cap off) sends brain
flying
> >everywhere.
> >
> >In other words , the Parkland testimony is not incompatible with
anything.
> >
>
> Once you admit that a pressure cavity blew apart Kennedy's head, then
> the location of the wound says very little about the trajectory of the
> bullet. Your theory, for example, is perfectly compatible with a shot
> from behind.
Sure, John, I know it is.
I think the headshot *was* from behind.
PS.
>
> On the issue of a "pressure cavity," see:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/gel1.rm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/gel2.rm
>
> .John
>
>
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> >> So are you really arguing about what the witnesses saw, or are you
arguing
> >> about what the x-rays and photographs show?
> >
> >John is arguing with the witnesses, in this case.
> >
>
> No. You are *assuming* that the witness testimony is as Aguilar
> presents it. But in fact he distorts it.
John,
A lot , maybe not all, of the witness testimony simply *is* as Aguilar
presents it.
The xrays show the right rear skull shattered.
The headshot nevertheless was demonstrably from the rear.
An observation about Kemp Clark's location of the headwound.
First, where did he think it was?
...................................
Mr. Specter.
What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there?
Dr. Clark. <snip other matters>.........
I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a
large,
gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar
tissue
being damaged and exposed.
.....................................
Now, we can get a better handle on *exactly* where he meant by thinking
about what follows:.........:
......................................
Mr. Specter.
Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head,
with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the
President's head?
Dr. Clark.
No, sir; I did not.
Mr. Specter.
Did you observe, to make my question very specific, a bullet hole or what
appeared to be a bullet hole in the posterior scalp, approximately 2.5 cm.
laterally to the right, slightly above the external occipital protuberant,
measuring 15 by 6 mm.
Dr. Clark.
No, sir; I did not. This could easily have been hidden in the blood and
hair.
........................................
We can see from this that the area 'laterally to the right, slightly above
the external occipital protuberance' *cannot* have been positively
identified as *missing* by Clark. He says the area in question 'could
easily' have been hidden by scalp & hair.
(If he thought that that area of occipital bone was actually *gone*....he
could hardly have gone on to agree to the proposition that he might
nevertheless have overlooked a bullet hole in it. )
This seems to me to push the Clark 'visible rear defect' up at least to near
the upper/anterior border of the occipital on the right.
......................................................
Mr. Specter.
Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head
wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. Carrico.
The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right
occipitoparietal area.
I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with
avulsions of the
calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was
shredded macerated cerebral
and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds ########and on the fragments of
the skull attached to the dura############.
.....................................
So Carrico has a right occipito-parietal wound.
Going by Clark's description, (above), we'd seem to be more parietal that
occipital.
Carrico has " fragments of the skull attached to the dura" at the site of
this large gaping wound.
Did he check to see if these 'still attached' frags would/could 'fill' the
hole?
Obviously not.
But if they in fact *could*....then there's no difficulty in explaining why
the Bethesda xrays show no bone missing at the right rear.
PS.
I agree there was a hole there, joisa.
The question to me is the cause of it, whether it was correctly interpreted
as an exit, whether bone was actually blown clean off the head there.
Judy & any other interested parties....
quote Lifton BE p 312 paperback (my # for
emphasis).......................................
In interview with Theodore White on ########Nov29th
1963####### , published 15 years later in his memoir' In Search of History',
Mrs Kennedy described what she did to keeep the exposed
brain from falling out of the wound.:
"All the ride to the hospital ...I kept holding the #### top
## of his head down, trying to keep the brain in."
........................................
That's her memory one week after the event, if the quote is accurate.
This argues persuasively to me that the #toh# was not in such great
condition at the time.
On the rear of the head: (same book p 321 paperback)
.........................
"Writer Jimmy Breslin, who interviewed some of the Parkland
doctors for an account published on ###Sunday Nov 24#####, reported the
existence of a ### "huge flap" ###### in the "occipito-parietal,
which is a part of the back of the head."
..........................
...which strengthens the idea that the rear opening seen at Parkland may
well have been an open flap .........perhaps the one area where Jackie and
copious amounts of clotted blood and matted hair had failed to more or less
shore up the head .
> Thanks, Let me ask if you are going for two flaps, an anterior and
> posterior flap? Intentionally used imprecise adjectives :)
Judy,
By 'flap' I suppose I mean a piece of skull that is still attached to the
scalp, dura or still hanging on to an adjacent piece of skull.
I should really call it a 'non-totally-detached mobile skull fragment' (or
'NTDMSF' ?) or something more impressive & technical sounding like that.
If you think about it, any loose piece of skull bone that was still on the
head at Bethesda must still have been attached to the head *somehow*.
My shorthand for this is a 'flap'.
This is what got Mr Lifton (& many others..) all mixed up.
I suppose it is natural to assume that a bone frag is either knocked clean
off the head or it's still firmly & solidly attached to the head.
But there's a grey area ...... of NTDMSFs. : )
I was re-reading Boswell to the ARRB and he has a devil of a job getting
across to Gunn that when he says a piece of skull is 'missing', he might
mean it was actually not there at all or he might mean it was simply......
hanging loose.
Experiment.
Take a big heavy round goldfish bowl.
Wrap a whole load of sticky tape all around it, to a 1/8 inch thickness or
so, completely covering it.
Now drop it on a concrete floor from 20 feet up.
What do you have?
Flaps. NTDMSFs.
Discrete chunks of goldfish bowl...still stuck together with tape.
So I'd say the remains of the head were kind of in that general condition,
back to the margins of the 'large defect'...where we finally hit solid
*unflappable* bone.
The whole right parietal, some left parietal, the posterior half of the
right frontal and marginally the temporal and occipital were all either
reduced to NTDMSFs, or blown right off the head.
In an area where the scalp happens to be so torn that one of these loose
frags can be partially or wholly lifted up away from it's neighbours, we
have a what you probably think of as a 'flap'.
Hope this helps.
Or at least doesn't hinder. ( :
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
joisa <joisa@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8omsp2$t5b$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39ae171b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Paul Seaton" <paulseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
> >
> > joisa <joisa@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:8oke7n$vp5$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> > <snip extended seies of quotes demonstrating hole in right rear of head>
> >
> > I agree there was a hole there, joisa.
> > The question to me is the cause of it, whether it was correctly
interpreted
> > as an exit, whether bone was actually blown clean off the head there.
>
>
> Excellent questions. My point was to get those who still claim there was
> no hole there, or that the doctors were somehow unable to see the back of
> the head, to face up to there being a large wound there.
Seems to have appeared as a 2 or 2.5 inch hole.
.............
Mr. Specter.
Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head
wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. Carrico.
The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right
occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more
or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I
stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and
cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull
attached to the dura.
..................
There's a roughly triangular bone fragment above and behind the right ear
(see the lateral xray) that fits the bill.
If it was somehow hanging loose/ open, we get a hole in the right place, of
the right size.
I should say that the 'Parkland Position' for the *rear* head defect varies
from the low occiput to the cowlick.
This reflects the fact that memory isn't perfect, I suppose.
Salyer sees right temporal damage. Giesecke sees damage to the *top* of the
head and the *left* temple...again this may be memory playing tricks,
confusing left with right.
I think also that the cleaning up of the head done by Bowron & Henchliffe
may have made the condition of the head a little clearer when the body
arrived at Bethesda.
The initial impression at Bethesda seems to have been of a right rear
defect. Then the scalp is laid back and the true extent of the destruction
becomes much more obvious.
Whether or not it
> was an exit wound from a frontal shot is all together a different
> proposition. It may well be that all or most of the bone was still
> attached to the scalp, for example, and was pushed back into place, quite
> innocently, resulting in photos and x-rays that show that area more or
> less intact.
That's exactly what I'm getting at.
There's a sackful of evidence in the Z film & elsewhere that the 312/3 shot
was from the rear.
I wish I knew more about terminal ballistics.
But the bullet fragmented, undeniably, and this is maybe what led to the
catastrophic destruction we have to deal with.
PS.
>
> joisa
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
JudyandJFK <judyandjfk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000901013036.12726.00000070@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Kemp Clark on the Headwound.
> >From: "Paul Seaton" paulseaton@breathemail.net
> >Date: 8/31/00 5:23 PM Central Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <39aedc64@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
> >
> >
> >JudyandJFK <judyandjfk@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000831143352.12093.00000387@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> >> >Subject: Re: Kemp Clark on the Headwound.
> >> >From: "Paul Seaton" paulseaton@breathemail.net
> >> >Date: 8/31/00 6:38 AM Central Daylight Time
> >> >Message-id: <39ae457c@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
> >> >
> >> >Judy & any other interested parties....
> >> >
> >> > quote Lifton BE p 312 paperback (my # for
> >> >emphasis).......................................
> >> >
> >> > In interview with Theodore White on ########Nov29th
> >> >1963####### , published 15 years later in his memoir' In Search of
> >History',
> >> >Mrs Kennedy described what she did to keeep the
> >exposed
> >> >brain from falling out of the wound.:
> >> > "All the ride to the hospital ...I kept holding the
####
> >top
> >> >## of his head down, trying to keep the brain in."
> >> >........................................
> >> >
> >> >That's her memory one week after the event, if the quote is accurate.
> >> >This argues persuasively to me that the #toh# was not in such great
> >> >condition at the time.
> >> >
> >> >On the rear of the head: (same book p 321 paperback)
> >> >
> >> >.........................
> >> >
> >> > "Writer Jimmy Breslin, who interviewed some of the
Parkland
> >> >doctors for an account published on ###Sunday Nov 24#####, reported
the
> >> >existence of a ### "huge flap" ###### in the
> >"occipito-parietal,
> >> >which is a part of the back of the head."
> >> >..........................
> >> >
> >> >...which strengthens the idea that the rear opening seen at Parkland
may
> >> >well have been an open flap .........perhaps the one area where
Jackie
> >and
> >> >copious amounts of clotted blood and matted hair had failed to more or
> >less
> >> >shore up the head .
> >> >
> >> >PS.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks, Let me ask if you are going for two flaps, an anterior and
> >> posterior flap? Intentionally used imprecise adjectives :)
> >
> >Judy,
> >
> >By 'flap' I suppose I mean a piece of skull that is still attached to the
> >scalp, dura or still hanging on to an adjacent piece of skull. I should
> >really call it a 'non-totally-detached mobile skull fragment' (or
'NTDMSF'
> >?) or something more impressive & technical sounding like that. If you
> >think about it, any loose piece of skull bone that was still on the head
> >at Bethesda must still have been attached to the head *somehow*. My
> >shorthand for this is a 'flap'.
> >
> >This is what got Mr Lifton (& many others..) all mixed up. I suppose it
is
> >natural to assume that a bone frag is either knocked clean off the head
or
> >it's still firmly & solidly attached to the head. But there's a grey area
> >...... of NTDMSFs. : ) I was re-reading Boswell to the ARRB and he has a
> >devil of a job getting across to Gunn that when he says a piece of skull
> >is 'missing', he might mean it was actually not there at all or he might
> >mean it was simply...... hanging loose.
> >
> >Experiment. Take a big heavy round goldfish bowl. Wrap a whole load of
> >sticky tape all around it, to a 1/8 inch thickness or so, completely
> >covering it. Now drop it on a concrete floor from 20 feet up.
> >
> >What do you have? Flaps. NTDMSFs.
> >
> >Discrete chunks of goldfish bowl...still stuck together with tape.
> >
> >So I'd say the remains of the head were kind of in that general
condition,
> >back to the margins of the 'large defect'...where we finally hit solid
> >*unflappable* bone. The whole right parietal, some left parietal, the
> >posterior half of the right frontal and marginally the temporal and
> >occipital were all either reduced to NTDMSFs, or blown right off the
head.
> >
> >In an area where the scalp happens to be so torn that one of these loose
> >frags can be partially or wholly lifted up away from it's neighbours, we
> >have a what you probably think of as a 'flap'.
> >
> >Hope this helps. Or at least doesn't hinder. ( :
> >
> >PS.
> >
> Gee, you sound like a lawyer : )
Hee hee!!!
I think the answer is yes, there were at least
> two flaps?
Sure, I think so.
> I still accept the anterior flap, near the ear exists.
Well at least we have a few photos of that one, open, closed, & on the
xrays.
However, in
> reading your posts I am also visualizing a second posterior, right upper
rear,
> but not as high as the cowlick but above the EOP entrance wound. Am I
reading
> your descriptions correctly?
Yup. Although some Parkland people put the rear opening as high as the
cowlick.
I'm sure occipital is too low. I don't know how they would've been able to
see the occipital area at all clearly, since his head would've been resting
on it.
I'm going for a 2 or 2.5 inch opening, with a flap of skull and scalp
hanging away from it, just a little above and behind the right ear.
On the lateral xray there's a triangular bone frag of the right size there.
It's concievable to me that the BOH pictures just happen not to make the
torn scalp there apparent.
As I've said before, those pictures *don't* show the scalp, they show the
hair.
So they really aren't too much help on the exact state of the scalp.
PS.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen <barb_j@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:39b3d90f.250665747@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 08:19:46 -0700 (PDT), lazuli777@webtv.net (Vern
> Pascal) wrote:
>
> >Hi Barb;
> >
> >The occipital wound had to be almost as low as the McClelland drawing
> >depicts, in order for the cerebellum to be involved.
>
> Yes....*almost* as low. McClellands drawing extends to between the
> middle and bottom of the ear, so moving it up just a tad (as the
> Parkland physicians, including McClelland, noted it should be to the
> ARRB) works. I have located the eop relative to the top of the ear on
> dozens of people.....and it falls between right on with the top of the
> ear to 3/4" below the top of the ear.........*most* often falling 1/4
> to 1/2" below the top of the ear.
... nobody's going to like this but there's always the possibility that the
wound didn't go low enough to show cerebellum....the cerebellum was *up*
enough to show through the wound. (Which I make *above* or *at* the level of
the top of the ear.)
In other words the brain at the back of the head had been 'dragged' up out
of place....maybe explaining the tears to the peduncles too...and the ease
with which the brain was removed.
Needless to say I'd put that down to the explosive impact of the bullet.
(Build up enough pressure in the cranium & suddenly release it. The whole
contents are going to want to jump out. Hence also the huge 'splash' around
the head on the z film.)
PS.
Edison Everleigh <Everleigh@Netscape.Net> wrote in message
news:39B63170.265A8A95@Netscape.Net...
>
> 1.That IS exactly what I was talking about. THE MEDICAL photo evidence.
> The x-rays shows a hole in the front of and above of the temple. Got
> that?
Do they?
You're a radiologist, I suppose. If you look at the jfk pre-mortem xrays
(there's one in Assassination Science..) you'll find that area appears
pretty well vacant there too.
Don't forget the xrays you usually see are enhanced, meaning the tonal
range is (deliberately) skewed, and in particular the edges are all
(extremely) sharpened.
If you have seen the UNenhanced lateral xray, you might think the man has no
face at all. It would be a 'reasonable' conclusion...but it would also be
flat wrong.
In a head xray, a lot of the lucency around the cranial vault is due to the
*brain*. Given that jfk's brain was shattered, you then have to work out
what part of the apparent damage is due to missing brain, & what to missing
bone. It's not a trivial question. IE a layman looking at the xrays is
liable to make some assumptions which are simply wrong.
2.The Zapruder shows a big gapping wound on the side of the head.
> Almost behind the temple. And almost on top of the templer area.
Where the huge flap is on the boh photos.
3. The
> FOX "stare of death" photo shows a small wound above the ear. There are
> three completely different pieces of evidence showing three different
> wounds.
The flap (see above) is folded *up* in the SOD picture. The rear end of the
big front flap is the area of bone sticking out above the ear in the SOD
picture (and the superior profiles)
The xrays are taken with the flap up, and it's there on the xray.
It's the same wound.
It's very big.
Before the head was examined at Bethesda, nobody quite knew *how* big. That
only became apparent when the scalp was laid back.
PS.
Robert,
Perhaps you also got together with Humes over a drink or two & he recounted
the hilarious tale of how he absent-mindedly described JFK's large head
defect as including "occipital" in the autopsy report too?
And with Russell Morgan, Professor of Radiology, School of Medicine and
Professor of Radiological Sciences, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who examined the xrays for the Clark
Panel & claimed (you doubtless think erroneously) that:
. "With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the
traumatic damage is particularly severe with ########extensive fragmentation
of the bony structures ########from the midline of the frontal bone
anteriorly #########to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal
bone behind######### " (Maybe you are of the opinion that the 'posterior
margin of the parietal' is at the *front* of the head, Robert?)
And with good ole G.M. McDonnel, M.D. DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY, THE HOSPITAL
OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA , consulting radiologist to
the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel who was apparently drunk as a skunk when
he wrote:
"The findings and interpretation of the skull films
are............#########Nearly complete loss of right parietal
bone#########, the upper portion of the right temporal bone, and a portion
of the posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."
And lest we forget the frigging *brain surgeon*....here's Kemp Clark
inventing palpable nonsense (apparently) for the benefit of history & the
Warren Commission, describing the wound he saw as:
"...in the########## right occipital region of the President's
skull#########, from which considerable blood loss had occurred which
stained the back of his head, neck and upper shoulders."
And to throw in one more more or less at random from the apparently endless
list of mistaken professionally incompetant idiots who examined JFK that
day, lets try John Stringer, who took a photo which is in the public domain,
and which was 'oriented' by the HSCA . I'm talking of 'F8'...........the
autopsy autopsy photo ...which shows the inner surface of the right rear of
JFK's head completely bereft of bone.
He was so bad at his job he managed apparently to photograph damage that
*actually wasn't there at all!!!! *. Now that's a true pro, in my book.
I personally find the situation almost laughable.
It is as if defenders of the proposition "O J Simpson Murdered Nicole
Simpson" had somehow got themselves wedded to the notion that believing that
the moon is made of Cheddar Cheese was a neccessary logical step in the
proof of OJ's guilt.
And despite *all* the evidence being that the moon is not in fact made of
Cheddar Cheese, they still feel the neccessity to come out & shout it from
the rooftops when the moon is full.
I would like to ask you, where exactly is your evidence that the rear right
of JFK's head was *not* 'fragmented'? Clearly you can't be thinking of the
xrays, which show that it was. Or the autopsy photos, which show that it
was. Or the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence from FBI agents,
brain surgeons, & the guys who performed the autopsy, and sundry other
witnesses too numerous to detail here.
I would also politely enquire how Humes managed the breath-taking feat of
removing JFK's brain *without the use of a saw* when the whole rear of his
skull was perfectly & artistically intact?
Now there's a guy who deserves the Nobel Prize for surgery.
Or maybe all the fools mentioned above were (God Forbid!) *smokers* and
consequently not the kind of people you'd want to take too seriously?
--
® Þ§
Rick,
Of course the xrays also show that the right rear was extensively
'fragmented'. Meaning blasted into discrete fragments of bone, held together
by the scalp.
So maybe the xrays are simply 'unreliable'?
Or maybe the xrays 'changed their minds'?
Or maybe they have been 'misquoted'?
Or maybe the xrays 'couldn't really see the back of the head'?
Or maybe the xrays saw the boh photos and decided that even though the boh
photos don't show the rear *skull* at all, they were better evidence as to
the state of the rear skull?
In short...maybe the xrays are simply mistaken? After all, it's been a long
time.
Emulsion fades.
The best evidence on this subject is (apparently, since John McAdams refers
to it all the time..) a drawing done in 1977/8 by Ida Dox, which (contrary
to the xrays) does *not* show the back of the head fragmented.
Why rely on witness testimony , photographs, and xrays when you have a
definitive *drawing* done 14 years after the fact to refer to?
John McAdams <john.mcadams@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:3a3d2134.7990873@news.primenet.com...
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:09:51 GMT, rickholtman@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3a3c318c.36542669@news.primenet.com>,
> > john.mcadams@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> >> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 01:13:30 GMT, garyag@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <91g43f$2eb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> > Jerry <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Jerry, John, others-
> >
> >The problem here is the basic way you handle witnesses, not just Charles
> >Baxter. Howard Brennan changed his story from not getting a clear look
at
> >the shooter to positively identifying Oswald. That's okay with you
> >because you need him to place Lee in that window. Jean Hill added
details
> >and you call her a liar. Brehm changes from a shot from the knoll
blowing
> >debris to the left of the limo, to not having to tell his story to the
> >Commission because they already had it right and you joyfully embrace his
> >later statements. Butch Burroughs adds details and you scornfully
declare
> >him a liar. Charles Baxter is just one more example of the way you
people
> >manipulate testimony and evidence to promote your view of events. Many
> >thanks to Gary for clearing up one more example of the inconsistant
> >methods used to promote the lone assassin hypothesis.
> >
>
> There is a fundamental asymmetry that you are overlooking, Rick.
>
> We lone nutters have a ton of photographic, x-ray, and forensic
> evidence on our side.
Not on this issue you don't.
The xrays back the witnesses. The photos back the witnesses.
The experts who examined the xrays back the witnesses.
You choose to disbelieve all of them.
(snip)
>
> So far as I'm concerned, the x-rays and photos are dispositive.
You mean the xrays & photos that (according to the Clark Panel & HSCA
consultants) show the back of the head (right rear parietal) in pieces?
If they are dispositve, why do you insist on contradicting them?
The xrays plainly & defintively demonstrate that the back of the head was
not intact.
So do the photos. (F8 in particular).
So do the witness statements.
I can only conclude that as far as you're concerned *nothing* will ever
convince you that you could possibly be wrong, even if 100% of the best
evidence clearly demonstrates it.
I suppose it must be one of those marvellous things we just have to put down
to the workings of faith, and divinely revealed truth.
® Þ§
Jerry <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91k3rf$smu$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Paul,
>
> In article <3a3d3923@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Paul Seaton" <paulseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jerry <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:91ijrm$pm1$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > In article <3a3be451@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > "Paul Seaton" <paulseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:91g443$2ee$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > Dr Baxter's testimony to the WC gives the lie to those who place
> > > JFK's headwound in the back of his head - of course the literal
> back of
> > > JFK's head could not be seen as he lay on the stretcher in Parkland:
> > > >
> > > > You are a natural born comedian, Jerry. I don't think anyone
> places
> > > the wound *only* at the back of the head. The wound
> comprised 'almost complete loss of the right parietal...' etc. (HSCA
> radiology exam of xrays.) If you wish to maintain that no part of the
> right parietal is at the 'back' of the head, feel free.
> > >
> > > No, you misunderstand.
> > >
> > > My point is that Dr. Baxter's description of the wound is
> consistent with the photos and x-rays and inconsistent with the
> drawings of where, say, Dr. McClelland, said it was - indeed, only in
> the back - and where "Doc" Livingstone has photos of people with their
> hand on their head.
>
> > You mean where they have their hands pretty much at the right rear
> > parietal where the xrays say the bone was extensively fragmented?
>
> It was my impression that Livingstone meant to imply that there was a
> DEFECT there. Not mere fragmentation. Perhaps I misunderstood. <g>
Jerry,
There was 'mere' fragmentation at the right front/temple where the huge
flap opens up on the z film.
No bone missing. It was all still there.
Are you contending that no-one could possibly have seen a 'hole'/ opening
(whatever) at the right front? Because the bone there was 'merely'
fragmented?
You'll be claiming the z film is fake next.
(Fragmented bone is *loose* bone, Jerry.)
>
> We might well say that the skull IN TOTO was "extensively fragmented"
> from the overpressure within caused by the pressure cavity created by
> the bullet. No?
Including the right rear?
Then you are saying the right rear cannot have been seen ''open' despite the
fact that the bone there was admittedly in pieces, held together only by
scalp?
Then by the same token the huge 'hole' on the z film must be an optical
illusion.
>
> Are
> > those the pictures you mean? The ones with the hands at the *back *
> of the head? Where the rear parietal is?
>
> Not as I recall them. They looked more occipital to me.
??? This is bizarre.
>
> >Where there's no damage? Because the back of the head is intact?
>
> I didn't say there was "no damage". I said there was no DEFECT there.
So because there's no bone *missing* there, there's no possibility that
anyone saw a hole there?
See above.
To claim that is to claim there was no 'hole' to be seen at the right front
when the flap there was hanging down over his cheek. Because according to
your (erroneous) understanding of the meaning of the word 'defect', there
was no defect there either.
>
> >Despite the xrays saying it isn't? Something about your position is
> lacking in clarity, Jerry.
>
> I think you have a reading comprehension problem, PS.
>
> As to your ability to understand what I've written and what I infer,
> you're batting a solid '000'.
Either that or what you 'infer' is self contradictory.
>
> > > > There's a little graphic compendium of the Parkland versions of
> the headwound at:
> > > >
> > > > http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/boh/boh-parkland.htm
> > > >
> > > > ..with links to the HSCA radiology & the autopsy report. You don't
> > > seem to have read either.
>
> > > Yet, I've read both. More than once. So much for your ability to
> make valid inferences.
>
> > You don't think those witnesses placed the wound they saw at the back
> of the head? Or you don't think the parietal bone encompasses any part
> of the back of the head? Or you think these damn fool radiology
> consultants can't read xrays? Which?
>
> First you talk of witnesses ... then, a fast segue into anatomy and zip
> where into radiology consultants! Wow, you're more dizzing than a
> whirling dervish.
>
> Of course I "think those damn fool radiology consultants can read
> xrays". I'm amazed that you'd think to put that question to me.
Then what's your problem with the 'back of the head' witnesses?
Since you're happy with the 'back of the head' x rays?
>
> > > > "... in a word-- literally the right side of his head had been
> blown
> > > > > off..."
> > > > > [He elaborates, as follows:]
> > > > >
> > > > > "The only wound that I actually saw ... was in temporal parietal
> > > plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area,
> oh, I
> > > > > would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this
> > > wound,
> > > > > part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood.
> loss
> > > > > mixed with it and around it."
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the wound the autopsists saw and documented with photos
> and x- rays.
>
> This was my POINT, Paul. Do you have any comment on it?
I believe I already pointed out that the autopsists believed the
wound/defect extended to the occipital bone. So much so that they saw fit
to mention the fact in the autopsy report.
So you appear to be saying they didn't *see* any occipital damage.
But they decided to pretend they had, just for a laugh.
>
> > > > The xrays show 'almost complete loss of the right parietal'. (Try
> > > reading the HSCA & Clark Panel radiology one rainy day) The
> autopsists saw a wound that extended to the *occipital* bone.
>
> Is that right? Is there where Humes had Rydberg draw the DEFECT?
> Extending into the occipital bone?
>
> So what does that sentence mean to you, PS, "extending somewhat into
> the occipital"?
It means that the large defect extended somewhat into the occipital bone,
Jerry.
Exactly where you think it wasn't.
If you think they are lying, fair enough.
But why would they be lying, Jerry?
>
> (Try glancing
> > > through the autopsy report some time...) So you seem to believe the
> > > xrays are fake & the autopsists are lying.
>
> Me? You have gone insane!
Then why/how deny what the xrays show & the autopsists describe?
>
> Interesting. You really
> > > *are* turning into a Liftonette.
>
> You just didn't get my posts on Lifton. Went clean over your head, PS.
You had a lot of people scratching their heads there...........
>
> You'll be telling us when & where the body & the xrays & the photos &
> the autopsists perceptions were 'altered' next. Can't wait.
>
> Me? You've gone daft.
OK.
As far as I understand your position so far:
1) The autopsists were right about 'occipital' damage.
2) The xrays show rear right parietal damage.
3) The back of the head was intact.
Since these 3 statements contradict each other, you might help me out by
letting me know which of them you disagree with.
>
> > > No, Paul, all of your "conclusions" about what I've read and what I
> > > think are totally incorrect.
>
> > Only because you 'conclude ' that the back of the head witnesses are
> wrong
>
> That's right, I so conclude.
>
> and in the same breath 'conclude' that the xrays showing the back of the
> > head smashed to fragments are right.
>
> So what does that have to do with where the DEFECT is located?
!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A little lesson for you, Jerry.
The skull DEFECT comprises the area of cranium absent after *all loose bone*
has been removed.
A 5cm chunk of bone hanging loose on a flap of scalp is part of the *DEFECT
*.
The *DEFECT*, Jerry, is where there is no firmly ataached bone where there
should be firmly attached bone.
I was assuming you knew that.
Seems I assumed too much on your part. I apologise. I will pitch my replies
a little lower in future. ( :
>
> And I think, "smashed to fragments" is NOT how the HSCA described the
> back of the head. Nor is that what we see in the xrays.
Russell Morgan, Professor of Radiology, School of Medicine and
Professor of Radiological Sciences, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who examined the xrays for the Clark
Panel & claimed (you doubtless think erroneously) that:
. "With respect to the right frontoparietal region of the skull, the
traumatic damage is particularly severe with ########extensive fragmentation
of the bony structures ########from the midline of the frontal bone
anteriorly #########to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal
bone behind######### " (Maybe you are of the opinion that the 'posterior
margin of the parietal' is at the *front* of the head, Jerry?)
G.M. McDonnel, M.D. DEPARTMENT OF RADIOLOGY, THE HOSPITAL
OF THE GOOD SAMARITAN, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA , consulting radiologist to
the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel wrote:
"The findings and interpretation of the skull films
are............#########Nearly complete loss of right parietal
bone#########, the upper portion of the right temporal bone, and a portion
of the posterior aspect of the right frontal bone."
So it may not be what *you* see in the xrays.
But it's what the experts see in the xrays.
>
> If you don't see any contradiction,
> > God Bless You.
>
> Contradiction? I go with the Clark and HSCA Panels.
As I said, you're a natural born comedian, Jerry.
--
® Þ§
Robert Johnson <rojohnson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:zvx%5.2866$l2.325804@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Paul Seaton" wrote in message
> > Perhaps you also got together with Humes over a drink or two & he
recounted
> > the hilarious tale of how he absent-mindedly described JFK's large head
> > defect as including "occipital" in the autopsy report too?
>
> This would be the autopsy report that Humes wrote without benefit of the
> x-rays or autopsy photos?
Well, since the xrays by general agreement show exactly what is reported in
the autopsy protocol (except for the location of the entry wound) I don't
see how having the xrays available would have made any difference.
And the photos (in particular F8) show the head devoid of bone at the right
rear. So having the photos wouldn't have changed anything.
Sorry but I've never met Humes.
>
> > And with Russell Morgan, Professor of Radiology, School of Medicine and
> > Professor of Radiological Sciences, School of Hygiene and Public Health,
The
> > Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who examined the xrays for the
Clark
> > Panel & claimed (you doubtless think erroneously) that:
>
> Sorry but I don't give opinions on radiological exams.
!! Wise move, from your point of view. I'm sure you are aware of the
location & geography of the parietal bone. I do believe it extends well into
the back of the head. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I haven't been
> trained to do this. Any attempt to do so would make me look like... well,
> someone that doesn't have the first clue what they are talking about.
>
> I prefer to leave such things up to those that are trained to do this.
> Apparently, the point you are trying to make is there is some disagreement
> between those in the profession about what the films and photos actually
> show? That's hardly a news flash.
No. The point is there's *no* doubt about what they show.
I was giving you the opinions of the consultants hired to tell the Clark
Panel & the Hsca FPP what the xrays show.
They agree with each other. I only find *one* radiology consultant employed
by the Clark Panel. And unless you are suggesting he disagreed with himself,
there's no disagreement.
>
> And the exact reasons I should believe your menu of radiologists versus
> the others
....sorry, Robert. What others?
>that are not in agreement is what?
I don't know where you get the idea they are in disagreement amongst
themselves. I see no disagreement.
They all agree.
The back of the head was in pieces.
- because they come from an
> "endless list of mistaken professionally incompetent idiots"??
>I don't
> know that I would put things that way but feel free to refer to them
> however you please.
It's a neccessary consequence of your belief that the boh was intact. "The
radiology consultants can't read xrays". "The brain surgeon doesn't know the
back of the head from the front". "The autopsists don't know the basic
anatomy of the skull."
>
> > I personally find the situation almost laughable.
> > It is as if defenders of the proposition "O J Simpson Murdered Nicole
> > Simpson" had somehow got themselves wedded to the notion that believing
that
> > the moon is made of Cheddar Cheese was a neccessary logical step in the
> > proof of OJ's guilt.
>
> This sophomoric analogy is so totally devoid of any form of logic that I
> don't understand why I'm bothering to respond to this at all.
>
> Besides Simpson did kill Nicole and everyone knows the moon is Swiss not
> Cheddar. However the two are not related in any way or form...
Hmm.
Well, the 'sophomoric analogy' was that believers in LHO's guilt by & large
also seem to believe this 'intact' blatant nonsense about the headwound.
I find that belief (that the boh was intact) comparable in foolishness to
the the belief that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese, since the photos,
xrays, witnesses & the mechanics of removing a brain at autopsy all
demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.
Once again, there is no 'professional disagreement' amongst those who have
examined the xrays.
Where did you get the idea that there was?
I would also politely enquire (again, since you seem to have quietly ignored
the question the first time I asked) how Humes managed the breath-taking
feat of
removing JFK's brain *without the use of a saw* when the whole rear of his
skull was perfectly & artistically intact?
--
® Þ§
> --- Robert J.
>
Jerry <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91no6o$ols$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3a3f2be2@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> "Paul Seaton" <paulseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Jerry <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:91k3rf$smu$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > Paul,
> > >
> > > In article <3a3d3923@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > "Paul Seaton" <paulseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:91ijrm$pm1$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > Paul,
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <3a3be451@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
> > > > > "Paul Seaton" <paulseaton@breathemail.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jerry <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:91g443$2ee$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > > > Dr Baxter's testimony to the WC gives the lie to those who
> place
> > > > > JFK's headwound in the back of his head - of course the literal
> > > back of
> > > > > JFK's head could not be seen as he lay on the stretcher in
> Parkland:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are a natural born comedian, Jerry. I don't think anyone
> > > places
> > > > > the wound *only* at the back of the head. The wound
> > > comprised 'almost complete loss of the right parietal...' etc.
> (HSCA
> > > radiology exam of xrays.) If you wish to maintain that no part of
> the
> > > right parietal is at the 'back' of the head, feel free.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you misunderstand.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point is that Dr. Baxter's description of the wound is
> > > consistent with the photos and x-rays and inconsistent with the
> > > drawings of where, say, Dr. McClelland, said it was - indeed, only
> in
> > > the back - and where "Doc" Livingstone has photos of people with
> their
> > > hand on their head.
> > >
> > > > You mean where they have their hands pretty much at the right rear
> > > > parietal where the xrays say the bone was extensively fragmented?
> > >
> > > It was my impression that Livingstone meant to imply that there was
> a
> > > DEFECT there. Not mere fragmentation. Perhaps I misunderstood. <g>
> >
> > Jerry,
> >
> > There was 'mere' fragmentation at the right front/temple where the
> huge flap opens up on the z film. No bone missing. It was all still
> there. Are you contending that no-one could possibly have seen
> a 'hole'/ opening (whatever) at the right front?
>
> No.
>
> I dont understand your obsessive search for the exact location of JFK's
> headwound.
>
> As Parkland said and as the autopsists found, it's consistent with two
> shots from above and behind.
Sure. I think so too.
But the notion that the back of the head was intact seems to have become a
part of LN dogma. I'm not entirely sure who the founder of this new religion
is (it may well be Posner), but as far as I'm concerned it's an argument
that by virtue of being innately ridiculous casts a shadow of doubt over the
whole of the medical evidence.
The spectacle of otherwise apparently reasonable people defending this
totally absurd notion on the grounds that they apparently think it's
neccessary to the LN case makes me wince.
Look at the verbal gymnastics McAdams gets involved in trying to wheedle his
way around the 'back of the head' witnesses.
And it's simply a fact that no-one with the smallest degree of skepticism is
going to believe it, because it's intrinsically unbelievable.
It's also historically plain inaccurate.
>
> Now, the buffs exploit every bit of confusion and ambiguity to try
> to 'get' a shot from the front or two shots or a shot that Oswald
> couldn't have made.
>
> So, their obsessive interest in the medical minutia is tendentious;
> but, what lies behind yours?
Just trying to sort out the facts, Jerry.
I don't believe it's a reasonable couterargument to a 'buff' to declare that
40 odd witnesses were just plain wrong.
It's a lousy argument.
No-one who's not already a committed & thoroughly blinkered LN is going to
believe it, period.
>
> Because the bone there was 'merely'
> > fragmented? You'll be claiming the z film is fake next.
>
> Don't hold you breath, Pauly.
OK so you agree it's possible for witnesses (in this case 'us' via Z's
camera) to see a great gaping hole where there is in fact no missing bone.
Yes?
The same seems to be true of the Parkland (& Bethesda) witnesses viv a vis
the *back* of the head.
>
> > (Fragmented bone is *loose* bone, Jerry.)
>
> > > We might well say that the skull IN TOTO was "extensively
> fragmented" from the overpressure within caused by the pressure cavity
> created by the bullet. No?
> >
> > Including the right rear?
>
> If there is an overpressure in a closed vessel then that pressure
> affects every part of the vessel, no?
>
> Then you are saying the right rear cannot have been seen ''open'
> despite the fact that the bone there was admittedly in pieces, held
> together only by scalp?
> > Then by the same token the huge 'hole' on the z film must be an
> optical illusion.
>
> More wrong reasoning from PS.
It's perfectly sound reasoning, based on the premises you appear to be
adopting.
("You can't see a hole if the bone is all there even if it *is* fragmented".
is a reasonable summing up of your statements so far.)
Starting from your premise, we conclude the Z film displays a marvellous
optical illusion.
I think there's something wrong with your premise.
So do you, apparently.
>
> > > Are
> > > > those the pictures you mean? The ones with the hands at the *back
> *of the head? Where the rear parietal is?
> > >
> > > Not as I recall them. They looked more occipital to me.
> >
> > ??? This is bizarre.
>
> And that's the point that Livingstone was attempting to make - that the
> back of JFK's head was blown out - ergo, the shot came from the front.
> I think he favors the sewer shot and eschews the GN.
Well, if we can try to keep this to the narrow issue of what the state of
the boh was, we might get somewhere.
It is undeniably true that there is no bone *missing * at the right rear on
the xrays.
Squaring this with the witnesses saying they all saw a hole there has always
been the problem.
Since the bone there *was* fragmented, and since more than one witness
describes a *flap* at the right rear, the conclusion suggests itself that
what was seen was a flap, open.
This neatly harmonises the xrays & the witnesses.
I think the most sensible way for anyone who believes as I do that JFK was
shot *from behind* to answer those who say 'what about the gaping hole at
the right rear seen at Parkland?' is to say, yes there was such a 'hole'.
It's a shame. It's awkward. Wish there hadn't been. But there apparently
was. We have to live with it.
Of course, since the head basically exploded, the fact that the rear was
blown out to whatever extent is hardly surprising.
>
> > > >Where there's no damage? Because the back of the head is intact?
>
> "Head is intact"??? Let's be precise: the SCALP is intact; the bone is
> fractured. This bone will crumble when the scalp is reflected.
OK. Very noble of you to confess.
And since the scalp is loose, we have a big mushy mess at the right rear of
the head, yes?
And all we need is for the scalp to slide/fall, or for there to be a few
inch long tear in the rear scalp & hey presto! universal harmony & accord.
>
> > > I didn't say there was "no damage". I said there was no DEFECT
> there.
> >
> > So because there's no bone *missing* there, there's no possibility
> that anyone saw a hole there? See above.
>
> > To claim that is to claim there was no 'hole' to be seen at the right
> front when the flap there was hanging down over his cheek. Because
> according to your (erroneous) understanding of the meaning of the
> word 'defect', there was no defect there either.
>
> According to Dr Bob Artwohl, who studied all the autopsy materials at
> NARA, the defect extends from the location of the entry (a half-hole)
> to the outshoot near the coroneal suture. That's the defect.
Well, he's in frank disagreement with the radiologists (and the autopsists)
then.
Did he explain how Humes managed to remove the brain with the boh intact?
I think not.
Is Artwohl a radiologist?
I think not. (I may be mistaken...but I think not).
Dr David Mantik, who has also studied the materials first hand, maintains
there is no entry wound on the xrays *at all*.
Such is the confusion among 'outsiders' I try to stick to the evidence as
provided by the *official* reports.
And if you believe Artwohl, you are still left with the 'little' problem of
explaining to 134,000 doubters that the neurosurgeon didn't know a hole in
the back of the head from a tomato.
>
> The scalp is almost completely intact and is holding together a badly
> shattered skull which will crumble when the scalp is reflected.
>
> Maybe Dr Bob has also an "erroneous understand of the meaning
> of ... 'defect'"???
Sounds like it.
Either way you now appear to be agreeing that the right boh (skull) was in
fragments.
This is good to know, and will warm my heart as I sing carols around the
hearth this Yuletide.
( :
>
> > > >Despite the xrays saying it isn't? Something about your position is
> > > lacking in clarity, Jerry.
>
> Something about your understanding of my position lacks "clarity".
OK were getting there.
You agree the back of the head was in loose fragments, held together to
whatever extent by scalp.
Now, as regards the back of the head autopsy *photos*..........
You will agree that the scalp must be reflected to remove the brain, yes?
And you said yourself (above) that the boh is going to fall to pieces as
soon as the scalp is reflected, yes?
And we agree that the area of 'fragmentation' was down to thge lamboid
suture, since we are not arguing with the official radiology, are we?
Now, would you agree that the boh pictures were taken *after* the brain had
been removed?
(Hint: Reply 'yes'.)
And that consequently the right rear skull *beneath* the scalp in the boh
pictures is to a large extent *missing*, yes?
And that to that extent the boh pictures are misleading, even if not
intentionally?
And that to argue that the boh pictures demonstrate an 'intact' boh *skull*
is simply mistaken?
I hope so.
>
> > > I think you have a reading comprehension problem, PS.
> > >
> > > As to your ability to understand what I've written and what I infer,
> > > you're batting a solid '000'.
> >
> > Either that or what you 'infer' is self contradictory.
>
> Since my inferences are identical to Dr Artwohls, then, I don't think
> the problem lies with my thought processes.
No they plainly lie with Artwohl's, if you are putting his message across
accurately.
If he wishes to contradict the Clark Panel & HSCA radiology, fair enough.
Perhaps you could post his radiological qualifications, since you have such
faith in him?
>
> > > > > > There's a little graphic compendium of the Parkland versions
> of the headwound at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/boh/boh-
> parkland.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ..with links to the HSCA radiology & the autopsy report. You
> don't
> > > > > seem to have read either.
> > >
> > > > > Yet, I've read both. More than once. So much for your ability to
> > > make valid inferences.
> > >
> > > > You don't think those witnesses placed the wound they saw at the
> back of the head?
>
> "Back of the head" is pretty vague, wouldn't you agree?
The litany has been, over the years, on this newsgroup and from Mr Posner,
that 'the back of the head was intact'.
I now know you disagree with that.
I'm glad you are amenable to evidence.
( :
>
> Or you don't think the parietal bone encompasses any part
> > > of the back of the head?
>
> I know that it does.
Again, congrats on taking a fresh view of things , Jerry.
>
> Or you think these damn fool radiology
> > > consultants can't read xrays? Which?
>
> I think some damn fool medico-wannabes get carried away with their own
> self-awarded 'expertise'.
You mean Russell Morgan? Or McDonnel?
I know you couldn't possibly mean *me*, Jerry, since all I'm doing is
quoting them.
(I'm kind of glad I wasn't stuck in a lift with you when you made that
statement.........)
>
> > > First you talk of witnesses ... then, a fast segue into anatomy and
> zip where into radiology consultants! Wow, you're more dizzing than a
> > > whirling dervish.
> > >
> > > Of course I "think those damn fool radiology consultants can read
> > > xrays". I'm amazed that you'd think to put that question to me.
>
> > Then what's your problem with the 'back of the head' witnesses?
> > Since you're happy with the 'back of the head' x rays?
>
> Again, we've got this totally ambiguous phrase: back of the head.
>
> Unless you havn't been paying attention, you have noted that people
> like Aguilar, Rick Holzman et al claim that the x-rays and photos are
> so out of synch with the witnesses that one must infer that they've
> been faked.
And McAdams solution to this apparent conundrum is to claim the witnesses
are *all wrong*!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And (here's the really foolish part) to claim that the back of the head *is
absolutely intact in the xrays* when it is nothing of the kind...according
to the experts employed by the authorities John so loves to quote.
At least you appear to have the sense to prevaricate on the issue.
("Well...whaddaya mean by 'back of the head'..? It's a pretty vague
phrase...")
>
> Yet, you tell me that there's no incongruity between the 'back of the
> head witnesses' and the x-rays/photos.
>
> That's simply amazin'.
Well, do you think there is or do you think there is not, Jerry?
You can give a straight answer, old trout, if you're right out of waffle.
>
> > > > > > "... in a word-- literally the right side of his head had
> been blown off..."
> > > > > > > [He elaborates, as follows:]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The only wound that I actually saw ... was in temporal
> parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large
> area,
> > > oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this
> > > > > wound,
> > > > > > > part of which was on the table and made a rather massive
> blood.
> > > loss
> > > > > > > mixed with it and around it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the wound the autopsists saw and documented with
> photos
> > > and x- rays.
> > >
> > > This was my POINT, Paul. Do you have any comment on it?
> >
> > I believe I already pointed out that the autopsists believed the
> > wound/defect extended to the occipital bone. So much so that they
> saw fit to mention the fact in the autopsy report.
>
> You know that when Humes had an illustrator draw the headwound he put
> it far forward of the low-back of the head (occipital bone). Why do you
> suppose that is?
Because he remembered the defect extending that low.
>
> If you look at Dox's drawing - on your page - you'll note a big
> fracture line radiating down into the occipital bone.
>
> Could not this be what Humes is talking about?
No. Since (again) a simple fracture is not part of the defect. Not part of
the hole on the head...unless there's bone *missing* from within that
fracture.
The Dox drawing (for whatever reason) omits all of the fragmentation
posterior to the cowlick.
It certainly doesn't carry it back to the posterior margin of the parietal,
where the (official) xray exams have the fragmentation ending.
So to that extent it's a misleading drawing.
Maybe that drawing is the root cause of all this 'back of the head intact'
nonsense. McA refers to it often enough, as if it were the holy bible.
>
> > So you appear to be saying they didn't *see* any occipital damage.
> > But they decided to pretend they had, just for a laugh.
>
> Paul, is it not a fact that they placed the defect chiefly in the right
> side of the head?
Who? The HSCA FPP? I'm not aware that they (as a group) placed 'the defect'
specifically anywhere in particular.
Their radiologists have it encompassing the posterior half of the right
frontal, and the upper half of the right temple & the *whole* right
parietal.
You appear to be agreeing that the defect included the rear right parietal.
I'm still not clear if you think Kemp Clark was hallucinating, and if so,
why.
>
> Did not Humes then go on to say that it extended "somewhat" into the
> occipital?
>
> How is that incompatible with what the Dox drawing shows?
What is it with the god forsaken dox drawing?
It's a drawing.
Where did the evidence on which to base the drawing come from?
The xrays.
Does the drawing agree with the xrays?
No, in respect of the condition of the right rear it does not.
The xrays show the right parietal 'almost totally lost'. (ie shattered to
the extent it's held together only by scalp).
Does the Dox drawing show the right parietal almost totally lost?
No.
Was it ever intended as anything but an illustration of the inshoot, the
outshoot, and the lost fragments of bone?
I hope not, because if it was someone did a lousy job.
According to the official radiologists, Jerry. Not according to any 'damn
fool medico-wannabes '.
>
> And, its fine for you to snipe at my assertions, why not lay your own
> cards on the table and tell me your positions on all these issues.
I think I have.
>
> > > > > > The xrays show 'almost complete loss of the right parietal'.
> (Try reading the HSCA & Clark Panel radiology one rainy day) The
> > > autopsists saw a wound that extended to the *occipital* bone.
> > >
> > > Is that right? Is there where Humes had Rydberg draw the DEFECT?
> > > Extending into the occipital bone?
The Rydberg drawing is so appallingly bad it's hard to say for sure it's
meant to be a human head at all.
> > >
> > > So what does that sentence mean to you, PS, "extending somewhat into
> > > the occipital"?
> >
> > It means that the large defect extended somewhat into the occipital
> bone, Jerry.
>
> To extend *to* an area is NOT THE SAME AS extending *into* an area.
OIC.
Now, you're starting to sound like McA.
If anything 'extends into' it would be 'extending' further than merely
'extending to', no?
Like, France extends 'to' Germany but not 'into' Germany.
>
> > Exactly where you think it wasn't.
> > If you think they are lying, fair enough.
> > But why would they be lying, Jerry?
>
> They're not lying. Everybody is looking at - if I may use an analogy -
> the same elephant. They've all seen only part and they're all using
> their own lingo - often inexact and ambiguous - to try to paint a word
> picture of a wound that Humes stated was beyond any verbal description.
OK. Sounds good. Then you would agree that at least *some* of this
particular elephant was a 'back of the head' elephant?
A right rear parietal-bordering on occipital elephant?
If you do, you no longer have to argue with the brain surgeon & his 1001
comrades.
Your views are in harmony with the xrays & photos.
You no longer have to fight losing linguistic battles where 'occipital'
doesn't mean occipital and 'back' of the head doesn't mean 'back of the
*head*' and 'to extend *to* an area is NOT THE SAME AS extending *into* an
area.'
They saw a hole in the back of JFK's head at Parkland.
The boh was shattered, the scalp sagged, or flap opened up or a slice of
bone there cut through the scalp and exposed the interior of the rear
cranium.
There is no medical evidence of a (head)shot from the front.
And one of the weakest points in the whole 'LN' scenario is weak no longer.
>
> > > (Try glancing
> > > > > through the autopsy report some time...) So you seem to believe
> the xrays are fake & the autopsists are lying.
> > >
> > > Me? You have gone insane!
> >
> > Then why/how deny what the xrays show & the autopsists describe?
>
> Tell me which x-rays shows a defect in the occiptal region.
Lets start by asking 'is the lambda suture always in relatively the same
place on all individuals'?
Ans: No.
Some people it's higher, some it's lower.
Are the Parkland crowd going to be able to see that suture?
Ans: No.
So if they see a 'hole' or a 'splitting open' of the right rear cranium,
about the level of the top of the ear, behind the ear, then whether it is
parietal or whether it is occipital is going to be guesswork.
Second:
Do you really believe that the wound to the skull is going to be considerate
enough to halt in a nice tidy line exactly along the lambda suture?
I think not.
So, we have a wound which encompasses the *whole* right parietal........now
what is the likelihood that here & there it is very very naughty & crosses
over that magic line and becomes for an inch or so...God Forbid!...an
OCCIPITAL wound.
(Unless you have a very tidy view of explosive headwounds in general.)
To answer the question (and this is my personal view based on getting the
location of the sutures from the pre-mortem jfk lateral head xray and
comparing with the post-mortem) the lateral JFK post mortem xray shows the
inferior edge of one of the large right rear fragments dipping well into
occipital bone.
>
> > > Interesting. You really
> > > > > *are* turning into a Liftonette.
> > >
> > > You just didn't get my posts on Lifton. Went clean over your head,
> PS.
> >
> > You had a lot of people scratching their heads there...........
>
> > > You'll be telling us when & where the body & the xrays & the
> photos & the autopsists perceptions were 'altered' next. Can't wait.
> > >
> > > Me? You've gone daft.
> >
> > OK.
> > As far as I understand your position so far:
> >
> > 1) The autopsists were right about 'occipital' damage.
>
> What does "damage" mean?
Some occipital bone actually missing once all loose bone has been removed
from the skull.
>
> > 2) The xrays show rear right parietal damage.
>
> Where does "rear" begin?
The posterior 50% of the right parietal. Or behind a line drawn midway
between the lamda & coronal sutures.
>
> > 3) The back of the head was intact.
>
> Define "back of the head".
Lets use the definitions I give (above).
>
> > Since these 3 statements contradict each other, you might help me out
> by letting me know which of them you disagree with.
>
> OK, I'll be a good sport. What I believe is very close to Dr Artwohl's
> position: a bullet entered in the cowlick region. From that point
> forward there was a defect up to around the coroneal suture.
>
> At the inshoot, there are fracture lines radiating out - including a
> large one into the occipital region. Bevelling proves the shot came
> from the rear. What remains is a half-circle. Ditto at the outshoot.
>
> There is general fracturing of the skull - to the point that it
> crumbles when the scalp - largely intact - is reflected.
>
> Now, if there are inconsistencies in the above, then, I'd like to have
> them pointed out.
Well, to stick to the point, I am going to ask you whether you believe the
preponderance of the witnesses were correct to describe seeing a 'hole' of
whatever description *behind and somewhat above* the right ear.
Given that you agree that the skull was in fragments there (for that is
exactly where the right rear parietal is) , you are now one tear/fold in
the scalp away from medical satori.
>
> Just forget the rest. Cut to the chase.
>
> I repeat - if there are inconsistencies in the above or examples of
> my "ignorance" then be so kind as to point them out. Spare the insults.
Credit where it's due, Jerry.
You are capable of independent rational thought on the subject.
It's a rare enough commodity.
--
® Þ§
more....
index
looking for books?