index

The Back Of The Head Debates - The Rear Flap II

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

> > 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 structuresfrom 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§
> >
> > art:¿
> > http://users.breathemail.net/paulseaton/
> > jfk:¿
> > http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk/
> >
> > >
> > > Jerry
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>

Yet we have cinematic proof there *was* a hole there at one point. (The z
film).
Therefore we conclude, if we follow your reasoning, that the superior
profiles photos are *also* forged.
Since the hole we all know *was* there (from the z film) is not there (on
the superior profiles). Go check if you don't believe me.
(Incidentally it *is* there again on the back of the head pictures. Just to
prove the point that this kind of injury can be infuriatingly puzzling. And
it's curious that those who so cunningly removed the flap from the superior
profiles forgot to remove it from the boh pictures.).
The right temple situation is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
The wound is there. Then it's not. Then it's there again. Weird.

So it is in fact demonstrably possible to have a large gaping hole in the
right temple area of the head *and no bone missing whatever from the right
temple area of the head* (I'm being loose here with my definition of the
exact area involved . I mean the area that should be 'filled' by the flap
visible at the right temple on the boh pictures) that bone still being
stuck beneath the the loose scalp.
What is true at the right front appears to be also true at the right rear.


So your dichotomy "Either all of these doctors and technicians were wrong or
there is something seriously wrong with the photographs." though it appears
like a perfect dilemma actually isn't.
The doctors & the photographs are *both* right.
There are any number of ways in which the scalp beneath the hair in the boh
pictures can be ripped, torn..whatever.
Since the area is plastered over with hair..we'll never know for sure
exactly what the state of the rear scalp was.
(And he'd been lying on it for 7 hours or so while the blood in the hair
dried so at Bethesda it's going to be pretty well stuck together.)
But there is no neccessary contradiction between the boh photos & the
witness statements & the xrays.
In fact O'Neill specifically describes a flap at the right rear to the ARRB.
And McClelland (from memory) describes the bones there 'sprung open', which
is exactly what I'm saying. As the front right was 'sprung open'.
You will agree that the Parkland doctors didn't by and large see or make
much of the huge flap at the right temple.
Why not?
Has the z film been faked up? (I think not.)
Are they lying?
I think not.
What's the explanation?
A flap of scalp and bone, open at z 314, closed up at Parkland.
Analogous exactly to the right rear of the head , open at Parkland, closed
up in the boh pictures.
If the xrays actually showed the right rear to be *intact*, then there would
be a very serious problem.
They don't.


Your
> explanation that all that hair is covering up rear skull damage flies
> in the face of all the evidence and testimony we have, with the
> exception of the artwork itself. Remember that Boswell insisted
> repeatedly to the HSCA questioners that there was skull bone missing in
> the back of the head.

I think Boswell was talking about the 'large defect' which is simply the
hole in the head when all the loose fragments of bone had been peeled away.
That defect *did* apparently extend down to the area of the eop.
This is backed up by the xrays which show 'fragmented' bone (ie removable
bone) down to the same area.


He has never varied from his position that the
> large wound extended so far back that he was unable to complete the
> entrance wound until a fragment was brought to the autopsy room late in
> the autopsy.

I personally don't think they were *ever* able to complete that entry wound.
(Compare their mutually contradictory descriptions of it).
I am not doubting that after the brain was removed (and before Finck
arrived) there was a hole in the right side of the head from the middle of
the frontal bone back to around the eop...otherwise I don't see how they got
the brain out without having to do any sawing. If the back of the head was
ever reconstructed after that time it was with bone that *they themselves*
had previously removed to get the brain out.
Boswell may be mis-remembering where those frags came from. Humes nor Finck
mentions any such reconstruction of the 'entry' at the eop being neccessary.



Boswell explained to the ARRB that that is what he
> attempting to depict with his drawing on the autopsy facesheet. He
> insisted to the ARRB that the location of the entrance wound was
> accurately described in the autopst report as being about an inch to
> the right and slightly above the EOP,

Then the xrays are forged and the photos are forged.
There are so many impossibilities associated with that apparently simple
sounding project that it is very very difficult to give the idea the time of
day.
Mantik himself tells me he knows of no way to 'replace' absent bone on an
xray so beautifully that it appears real.
No one has ever done it, to my knowledge.
There are huge & to my knowledge insoluble problems producing forgeries that
hold up viewed in stereo.
No one has ever accomplished it, to my knowledge.

I think there was an almightly foul up with entrance wound, that goes back
to Finck and his desire to find some incontravertible evidence *in the bone
itself* of a bullet striking from the rear.
But all that is another story.


and your explanation does not
> account for the fact that this protruding wound described by so many
> does not appear on the back of the head photographs.

Then how do you account for the fact that the huge protruding wound on the z
film at the right temple does *not* appear on the superior profiles, Rick?

1) front right flap closed up

2) front right flap open

We could conclude that the z film was faked . We could conclude that the
superior profiles were faked to hide a wound that the z film clearly shows &
that is in plain view in the boh pictures...
(Ie the conspiraotors were very dumb animals..)
Or we could conclude the obvious.
There's a slab of scalp with bone stuck beneath it there that is loose on
the head.
Being mobile, it's appearance changes over time.


The situation at the right rear is entirely analogous.

You have witnesses who saw it open. And photos of it closed.
You conclude that the witnesses must be lying or the photos must beforged.

I think that's premature. ( :


And the obvious explanation (loose bone at the rear held together by scalp)
is capable of squaring all the evidence whout demanding any
photographic/xray experts did anything fundamentally impossible.
Which is another reason why I'd prefer it as an explanation.


--
® Þ§

Boswell :


Q Maybe if we could look at that photograph
in conjunction with one from the third view.

A Where the flap is coming down?

Q Yes.

A I know this--the flap is stretched forward
here, because if this fell back down--with him in
this sort of recumbent position, yes, this scalp
would fold down and cover this wound.

Q So you're saying that on the fourth view,
which are the photographs that are in your hand
right now, the scalp has been pulled back and
folded back over the top of the head in a way
different from the way that they appeared in the
third view, the superior view of the head?

A Yes.

Q Is that fair?

A In the previous one, it was permitted just
to drop. In this one, it's pulled forward up over
the forehead, toward the forehead.

Q Who, if you recall, pulled up the scalp
for the photograph to be taken?

A There are about three of us involved here,
because there are two right hands on that
centimeter scale. I think that I probably was
pulling the scalp up.

(ARRB)

1) This found by Barb J:

<quote>

...................

Paul, while looking for something else recently, I came across an
article wherein it is obvious the author had interviewed Perry.The article
appeared in some papers on the 24th as a "special from the
New York Heral Tribune." In it, the author notes:

QUOTE
The wound in the throat was small and neat. Blood was running out of
it, too fast. The occipito parietal, which is a part of the back of
the head, had a huge flap."
END QUOTE
........................

<unquote>

2) This from O'Niell:

Q: Were you able to tell whether there was
any scalp that was missing from President Kennedy?
A: There appeared to be-There was a flap here.
Q: You're pointing again to the back of the
head?
A: Yes.There was a flap there.And I don't
know whether the flap was up or down.
(O'Neill ARRB p72)
...........................

3) This from McClelland (WC):

"I was in such a position that I could very closely
examine the head wound, and I noted that the right
posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.
It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot
so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp
and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior
half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured
in its lateral haft, and this ### sprung open the bones ### that I
mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down
into the skull cavity itself.."

............................


" 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 )
.........................................

Q So you're saying that on the fourth view,
which are the photographs that are in your hand
right now, the scalp has been pulled back and
folded back over the top of the head in a way
different from the way that they appeared in the
third view, the superior view of the head?

A Yes.

Q Is that fair?

A In the previous one, it was permitted just
to drop. In this one, it's pulled forward up over
the forehead, toward the forehead.

Q Who, if you recall, pulled up the scalp
for the photograph to be taken?

A There are about three of us involved here,
because there are two right hands on that
centimeter scale. I think that I probably was
pulling the scalp up.

(Boswell ARRB)
.....................................................
Dr. BADEN. Could you explain the diagram on the back?
Dr. BOSWELL. Well, this was an attempt to illustrate the magnitude of the
wound again. And as you can see it's 10 centimeters from right to left, 17
centi-
meters from posterior to anterior. This was a piece of 10 centimeter bone
that
was fractured off of the skull and was attached to the under surface of the
skull. . . There were fragments attached to the skull or to the scalp and
### all the three
major flaps. ####
(Boswell, HSCA FPP)
........................
" A ....... --the
morticians were able to cover this defect
completely by using some sort of plastic to cover
the brain cavity, because there wasn't much bone to
replace the brain cavity. But they were able to
use his scalp to almost completely close the wound.

Q So it would be fair to say that although
there was a very large piece of skull missing,
there was very little scalp missing?

A Right." (ARRB)

You are speaking as if the back of the guy's head had ONE permanent frozen
immobile visual appearance from 12.30 22/11/63 through to him being put in
the coffin.
This is like expecting a shirt on a clothes line on a windy day not to move.
The only stability to the boh was whatever skull was still firmly attached.
There wasn't much of that.
Consequently, and this has a parallel in the case of the right front flap,
the question 'was there a 'hole' at the boh?' depends on where the mobile
scalp & skull there was at any given moment.

There was also a 'hole' at the right front when the right front flap was
open.
When it wasn't, there wasn't.
The situation is entirely analogous.
I could use your line of reasoning to 'prove' that there was no right front
flap, by simply showing you the superior profile pictures and asking you to
point it out.
I could 'prove' there was no possibility of anyone seeing any hole there.
("The superior profile has been altered to hide that huge gaping hole!!!).
I conclude that your method of 'proof' is at fault.

Don't forget Perry, too. Both statements made before any controversy about
any boh photos.
Mantik actually calls the damn thing 'McClelland's Flap'.
And *of course* McClelland thought there was a hole in the rear head.
There WAS a big hole in the back of the head.
*When the flap there was open*.
When it was closed up...as per the skull x-rays... there wasn't.
This difficult concept seems to be way too complex for some people to get
their heads around.
Don't ask me why.

> Nope. That's *NOT* what the witnesses and autopsy report state.
> There *WAS* a part of the rear skull bone missing.

There was typically *assumed* to be. (And after the loose bone frags were
removed at the autopsy & the brain removed there was plenty of missing bone
at the boh..)
Because a lot of people seem to have trouble imagining a hole in a head that
has no - or virtually no -bone missing. (As we are seeing right here right
now..)
However, the superior profiles make the point very well.
You can indeed have a hole in a head where there's no bone missing.
Amazing.

"GMcNally" <jerry98@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.0203020840.3b452ca9@posting.google.com...
> Paul,
>
> Paul -who loves to twit the orthodox LoneNuttacy.

Or to nut the orthodox LoneTwitacy... ? : )

>
> "Paul Seaton" <paulseaton@breathemail.net> wrote in message
news:<3c7e379d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>...
> > "John McAdams" <john.mcadams@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3c7dc04c.17144352@news.newsguy.com...
> > > On 21 Feb 2002 16:52:29 -0500, "John Hill" <joisa@ev1.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21 Feb 2002 16:52:09 -0500, "John Hill" <joisa@ev1.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"John McAdams" <john.mcadams@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> > > >news:3c747af6.11618288@news.newsguy.com...
> > > >> On 20 Feb 2002 09:18:10 -0500, mikegriffith1@cs.com (Michael T.
> > > >> Griffith) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >Let me just ask you: Do you deny that dozens of witnesses said
they
> > saw a wound in the back of the head?
>
> > > >> A lot said "back of the head."
> >
> > Yup. The Clark Panel (no less) certainly did. See below.
>
> So, you imply that they say the defect (hole-in-the-head) is NOT
> *principally* on the side and top of the head - as described in the
> autopsy report - why?

Jerry, the dispute (from .John) is permanently about the 'back' of the head
problem.
There was plenty of wound at the front.
If I seem to ignore it, let me say again:
THERE WAS A HUGE WOUND AT THE TOP/RIGHT/FRONT OF JFK'S SKULL.
No doubt about it.
But the debate centres on the back of it.
Of course, it wouldn't if .John would not keep churning out his embarrassing
'boh' intact nonsense.


>
> > > >> But just what does "back of the head" mean?
>
> > Well, it can't possibly mean "back of the head", you've made that
> > abundantly clear over the years.
>
> Paul, perhaps you think of the head as a cube with clearly demarkated
> areas. Ah, if it were only so simple.
>
> As you've explained elsewhere, at Parkland, the large front flap was
> closed and the docs tended to see the H-I-T-H (hole-in-the-head) as being
> smaller and more rearward than when seen - open- at Bethesda.

Not exactly. That part of the wound seen at Parkland didn't move forwards
between the two Hospitals.
The 'right rear' damage seen at Parkland was still there at Bethesda.
But at Bethesda the rest of the monster was uncovered.


>
> > Maybe it means "can of worms" ?
> > Or maybe it means "the corner I backed myself into" ?
> > Or maybe it means "A non-existent point not to be found anywhere on the
> > human head"?
>
> When does the "back of the side" mean "right rear" - are not words clumsy
> and imprecise and inadequate for the purpose of describing where the HITH
> was and where it was not?

The HITH was TOH, BOH & FOH.
Actually, take issue with the Clark Panel, who used the phrase 'back of the
head' (' as in contours grossly distorted') themselves, I would presume
expecting that their readers would have a pretty good instinctive grasp of
the concept.

Or take issue with .John who habitually writes such clumsy imprecise &
inadequate posts as this:
........

From: John McAdams (jmcadams@primenet.com)Subject: Re: Aguilar 10 - Dox's
'Attempted' Illustration Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Date: 2001-01-31 09:58:03 PST

"I can look at the lateral x-rays and see that the back of the head is
intact.
I don't see why you can't."
...................

And who bases an entire series of 20 odd regularly repeated posts on the
premise that Gary Ag. doesn't have X Y or Z "back of the head" witnesses.
Myself I agree that the expression (eg) 'a 6cm hole in the
occipital-parietal region' is more precise.

>
> > But I'm floundering.
> > I'll leave it to you to tell us in what way the Clark Panel didn't mean
> > 'back of the head' when they said 'back of the head'.
>
> Oh, did the Clark say that the HITH was principally in the BOTH?

Did I say they did?

>
> > > >Well, golly gosh, I always thought "back of the head" meant BACK OF
THE
> > > >HEAD. Just what do YOU mean by "back of the head"? The side of the
head?
> > > >The front of the head? The top of the head? What part of "BACK" do
you
> > not
> > > >understand?
> > > >
> > >
> > > *Which* part of the head a particular witness is referring to.
> > >
> > > John, have you failed to notice that you "back of the head" folks find
> > > a way to classify people who gave radically *different* testimony as
> > > "back of the head" witnesses?
>
> Paul, you are being deliberately obtuse. Words don't serve us well in
> descriptions of complicated 3-D surfaces such as the human head.

Please explain that to John.


>
> > <quote>
> > EXAMINATION OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF HEAD
> > Photographs 7, 14, 42, and 43 show the back of the head [yes folks,
> > that's the BACK_OF_THE_HE@D ] the ## contours of
> > which have been grossly distorted by extensive fragmentation of the
> > underlying calvarium. ## <unquote> (Clark Panel Report).
>
> IOW, the underlying skull has suffered "extensive fragmentation".

You got it.
I really think this time you got it big time.
The underlying skull at the back of the head has suffered "extensive
fragmentation".
Is loose.
Is all floppy.
Is mobile.
Moves around.
Falls here, falls there.
Falls down..there's a big hole even a brain surgeon can see.
Is put back in place.
No apparent hole.
Take a picture? Why not!
Snap.
BOH PIK!

QED.

( & RIP
DOX.)


However,
> we don't see the skull in photos (save x-rays)

So we're lucky to have those x-rays or we might think the BOH was OK, right?

> nor can human eyes see bone
> when the scalp is intact back there.

Intact?

>
> The Clark's findings don't apply to witnesses who lack x-ray vision!

You mean Kemp Clark COULD have seen the BOH damage (which WAS there)..
... but since the rear scalp was (you say..) 'intact '
...he actually saw damage at the TOH (or the FOH or the SOH)
... or any place other than the BOH
... and IMAGINED it was 'occipital-parietal' ???
In a remarkable feat of hallucinationative WOUND-PREDICTION???
Glorious.
I think your remaining problem is with the notion that the rear scalp was
'intact' Jerry.


>
> > Whichever way you look at it, .John, the Clark Report was referring
> > unambiguously to the <quote> "back of the head" <unquote>
>
> But they didn't say the HITH was is the BOH.

Don't they?

"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 Above the fragmentation
extends approximately 25 mm. across the midline to involve adjacent portions
of the left parietal bone; below, the changes extend into the right temporal
bone. Throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced
outward; several pieces are missing."

They are no more specific than that.
" Throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced
outward; several pieces are missing."

They don't say where exactly.
However we can use Dr Angel's reading of the x-rays to discount missing bone
much posterior to the 'cowlick'.
(Or we can use our own eyeballs on the x-rays ..not sure it's kosher tho'..)

My point is that a HITH is a mutable commodity when you have a skull covered
in loose (fragmented) skull held together merely by scalp.
Take the front right flap as a case in point.
Here today. (Flap open)
Gone tommorrow. (Flap closed).


> They said the HITH was
> principally on the side and top of the head

Do they?
I'm not saying you're wrong, as a matter of fact about JFK's skull.
But I don't see where they say that.
They say the right parietal is wholly fragmented. The posterior half of the
right frontal is ditto.
Whatever you want to call that, be my guest.
But whatever it is, it gives the lie to the Dox drawing, on which .John is
basing "back of the head intact" theory.

>and the BOH had fractured
> and fragmented bone which was held in place by intact scalp and dura.

I see no distinction made in the Clark Report between any BOH and anywhere
else Jerry.
They say the right parietal is wholly fragmented. The posterior half of the
right frontal is ditto.
If you don't think the post. right parietal is "back of the head" fine.
But the post. right parietal underlies a good 50% of the scalp in the boh
pictures.
And it's depicted as nicely intact (justa coupla linear fractures..) in the
Dox drawing.
The erroneous source of .John's bizarre headwound theory.

>
> It's true that once the scalp was reflected, and, as Humes testified,
> after he picked away the loose pieces, that THEN, the HITH was much
> larger and extended clearly into the BOH.
>
> Let's call then HITH-1 and HITH-2: the -1 being with the largely
> intact scalp in place and -2 with it being absent and loose bone
> either crumbled by itself or picked away.
>
> Paul are you aware that your argument is largely a linguistic one and
> largely based on a merging of inner and outer damage and before and after
> damage?

Jerry, my argument is that it is entirely possible that Kemp Clark at al.
saw exactly what they said they saw. (Especially given the testimony we have
about a 'huge' rear flap..)
.John's argument is that (the Dox drawing being supposedly 'accurate') they
couldn't possibly have done so.
Given that we know (thanks not least to the Ramsey Clark Panel) that the Dox
drawing is by no means accurate, & that they could indeed have possibly have
done so, why continue to make these (unneccessary) bizarre claims about a
brain surgeon not knowing the back of the head from a hole in the ground?
Merely because it's been done for so long that ... well... it would look
pretty bad to change horses now?
Maybe that's it.
LN's!!!
Hear ye hear ye!!!
Tell your children!!
When we are dead & gone, forget all about calling virtually every doctor in
the JFK a case a befuddled lunatic.
We just realised.... we don't have to.
They were pretty well right after all.
It's just that... we can't admit it NOW, because that would mean admitting
we were WRONG WRONG WRONG for years & years & years & all on the basis of
one dumb drawing.....

(Please don't nit pick the simplistic generalisations in the foregoing....
you know what I mean.)


>
> I don't think you accomplish your purposes with your verbal
> legerdemain! Except of course to twit the LN-crowd - that, yes.

What do you think my purposes are Jerry?

>
> > Clearly they too were mistaken, as the back of the head was in fact
> > perfectly intact (as we all know)...
>
> It seemed so to those wretched humans who lack x-ray vision, no?

Yet somehow they saw through the wholly intact rear scalp and knew as if by
magic that there was a mess of fragmented skull and brains beneath?
They saw through the wholly intact rear scalp and saw the bones there
'sprung open'...??
There was a 'huge' flap there which could have been lying wide open... but
it just wasn't?
I think you are a rip or two in the scalp away from the truth, Jerry.

>
> > So how could it possibly be 'grossly distorted by extensive
fragmentation of
> > the underlying calvarium ' ?
> > It's really bugging me.
>
> Well, I've *ASKED* you to explain it, but, you begged off!

I'm trying. : )

>
> I sure don't see any "gross distortion of the countours" of the head
> on the photo repros that I've viewed - or any "scalp flaps" that
> conceal an actual HITH in the BOH.

1) You don't have all the photos.
2) You are arguing with the Clark Panel. The experts, Jerry.
3) You don't see any *front* flap when it's closed up either, do you? So the
fact that you don't see any flaps is neither here nor there. Perry did.
Sibert did. (Or was it O'Neill? : ) Boswell says there were THREE major
flaps. (Implying there were even other, minor , flaps...) Do you see them?

>
> > > Have you failed to notice that the wound the photos and x-rays
> > > actually show is mostly "posterior" that that means "back of the
> head?"
>
> > Kindly explain how this here highly accurate drawing (the sum total of
your
> > 'evidence' btw) shows the boh surprisingly UN-grossly distortable by a
(non-depicted) extensive fragmentation (reduction to fragments) of the
underlying calvarium.
>
> Why not look at Lattimer's drawing which is a fraternal if not an
> identical twin of the Dox?

Lattimer's drawing??? !!!
Jerry, PLEEEEEEZZEE sit down with that drawing and study it.
If you can't find one or two real howlers in it in about 5 minutes.. I'd be
surprised.
It is... how shall I put this?
' Spacially incoherent.'
Nuff said about Lattimer's drawing, unless you are really interested in it.

>
> > > >Please address EACH AND EVERY ONE of these witness statements and
tell us
> > > >WHY they're ALL "MISTAKEN."
>
> > > Most of them aren't mistaken, they simply have had their testimony
> > > selectively quoted and tendentiously interpreted by folks like you.
>
> > I hope you'll agree that I have the Clark Panel quote non-tendentiously
> > interpreted.
>
> Sorry, Paul, that's off topic and doesn't address the comment that CT
> selective quotes and tendentiously interprets the witness testimony to
> create the illusion that ALL the witnesses say, say, A, and, thus must all
> be right - 44 witnesses can't be wrong!

OK let's go with a hard core of twenty five.

>
> Then using A the Aguilars and Aguilar clones go on to challenge the photos
> and x-rays!
>
> Now, please address John's point!

I'm never quite sure whether .John's point is to nail Gary Ag. for his
crimes or to actually make a point about JFK's headwound.
If it's the former, he makes some valid points.
If it's the latter... I'd better not say any more.

>
> > They really do say "back of the head", don't they?
> > Maybe the "back of the head" is not the "BACK of the head" ?
>
> Aggie is content to argue that the top of the head, the side of the head,
> AND, the back of the head - down to the eop - BEFORE the scalp was
> reflected and the loose bone crumbled or was taken away.
>
> IOW that the witnesses - remember they are without x-ray vision - SAW
> the back of the head "blown out"!
>
> Now, do you side with Aggie on this - yes or no?

I think they saw an open flap of skull & scalp at the right rear (above &
behind the right ear). I don't believe it was any exit wound.
"Blown out" is kind of emotional.
If it was 'blown out' it must have been with a bullet, right?
Wrong.
His head blew up.
Those flaps could be anywhere.

>
> (You've used
> > that one quite effectively in the past.. but I think the crowd are
getting
> > wise to it by now, wink wink.. )
> > Or maybe the "back of the head" is not the "back of the HEAD" ? (Nah.
You
> > gotta admit it's a *head*....)
> > Maybe the "back of the head" is not the "back of THE head" ? (Nah.
Sounds
> > too much like body doubles : )
> > Maybe the "back of the head" is not the "back OF the head" ? (Hmmmm..
sounds
> > promising..albeit a little metaphysical... there might be some mileage
in
> > it..what do you think?)
>
> Just please answer the question - was there an actual blow out/hole -
> susceptible to Parkland AND Bethesda witness viewing in the back of
> the head - read this as area around the eop - yes or no?

Around the eop itself and subject to Parkland viewing in general?
I doubt it.

>
> And this: you and Aggie want to make all the witnesses right, but, can one
> do this without selectively quoting and tendentiously interpreting (John's
> words) then to achieve this remarkable homogeniety?

If by 'all' you mean absolutely 'ALL' then you may well have a point.
But it seems to me that (virtually) ALL the witnesses do place *the wound
they saw* within the margins of the wound that actually existed.
And a solid credible core of Parkland witnesses - including the
neurosurgeon - place it firmly 'occipital-parietal'.
There's no reason to doubt that they saw - pretty well there - pretty well
what they say they saw there.


--
® Þ§
http://graffiti.virgin.net/paul.seaton1/jfk




>
>
> Jerry
>

index

looking for books?