2 very relevant excerpts of the ARRB statements (I've added bold face to emphasize my points):
"MR. GUNN: I'd like to hand out a document to each of you that first appeared in a book by Josiah Thompson, which I assume that y'all are familiar with. We can mark this as Exhibit Number 264.
DR.PETERS: I think when Mr. Posner is looking at it was the 707, so I'm not sure I've seen Mr.'Thompson's.
DR.McCLELLAND: And you got to copy of it?
DR.PETERS: No. You can be the spokesman.
DR. PERRY: Who is Josiah Thompson?
DR. MCCLELLAND: He's a private investigator now, but he was a professor of history at this time -
MR. GUNN: Professor of philosophy at -
DR.MCCLELLAND: --somewhere in Pennsylvania.
MR.GUNN: --Temple or Villanova. I'm forgetting which. There's a picture on Page I07 of Exhibit 264. I'd like to ask those of you who saw the head wound if this corresponds to what you observed or if any of you has -- based upon your own observations, it seems inaccurate in any way. Obviously, it's a drawing and so there will be a problem with it, but just your observations on it for those of you who observed the head wound. Does this look like what you saw in Parkland Memorial Hospital?
DR.MCCLELLAND: I told him when he was asking me to describe that picture from which you reviewed this that the first thing I saw when I came in the room in addition to that attempted agonal respiration was the edge of the parietal bone was sticking up through the scalp. And that's not on this picture, but what we were trying to depict here was what the posterior part of the wound looked like. In other words, is not the entire wound. It's simply the posterior part of it and what I thought of as the critical part of it at that time and still do.
MR. GUNN: Does any of you have any--
DR.PETERS: I think that pretty much corresponds to what I said, occipitoparietal. It looks a little further down in the occiput in this picture, I think, but it was pretty far posteriorly because you had to be able to see the cerebellum --
DR.McCLELLAND: Yeah.DR.PETERS: --and -
DR.MCCLELLAND: Yeah, I agree, Paul. I think that this is a little bit lower or it doesn't indicate that there was still a - you know, maybe a shelf of bone left below that --
DR.PETERS: Yeah.
DR.MCCLELLAND: --but not much of one, and that did allow me to look down into the -- see the inside of the skull-- .
DR.PETERS: Right. I agree
DR. MCCLELLAND: --just like -- you know just like it would be if you took a
skull like you may have as you see here and there was nothing in it. I mean, not down in that part. There was nothing in it. There was no tentorium.
DR. PETERS: The X rays of President Kennedy's skull, which we privileged to see later, showed dramatically how large the fragmentation of the skull was and was easily compatible with what Bob saw originally. There was a big hunk of bone sticking up there in the parietal.
And along with what Dr. Baxter said describing the effects of fracture of the
cribiform plate of the skull,. Abraham Lincoln who was shot on one side with a fairly large caliber bullet had black eyes on both sides and
fractures of the cribiform plate on both sides. Both sides had hemorrhage around the orbits with a much less velocity wound than President Kennedy.
DR. JONES: I might comment on the -- on the eyes. The eyes were open but I
didn't remember hemorrhage around the eyes. I remember the eyes were open. It was just a straight stare. I didn't remember all the black
discoloration -
DR.PETERS: No.
DR. JONES: -- around the eyes.
DR.PETERS: I didn't either.
DR. JONES: This drawing, I could not look over and around so I couldn't speak exactly to this, but it seems to me from Bob's drawing that, Bob you must have been looking down tangentially at it because with this
below the ear and if you're flat, that's going to be on the table.
DR. McCLELLAND: Well,. that's what I'm saying.
This is a little bit farther back, but I was looking straight into it, not tangentially but right into it."
So, the drawing published in 6 Seconds in Dallas is accurate dimensionally, but is placed a bit too far back on the head. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
DR. McCLELLAND: Well,. that's what I'm saying.
This is a little bit farther back, but I was looking straight into it, not tangentially but right into it.
I would also comment about one other thing. When we went to the National
Archives ten years ago to look at these pictures, they were videotaping that for the Nova program, and we each one went in and looked separately at the photographs. And I can't remember the exact sequence, but when we came back out of the room where we'd been, each one of us made a comment about what we had seen and said, yes that seemed to agree with things and I said -- I volunteered that, well, one of the wounds had caused some comment in different things I had read and heard on, you know, television a time or two; and that they had noted in one of the pictures that there was hair covering all of this area where you see this large hole.
MR. GUNN : When you say -- I'm sorry. If I can interrupt for a second, when you say the large hole, you're referring to --
DR. MCCLELLAND: This -
MR. GUNN: -- something like the picture --
DR. MCCLELLAND: This one here -
MR. GUNN: -- on Exhibit 264.
DR. MCCLELLAND: There was no hole on that picture that looked like that. And I said,.
Well, I think I know what that is. I think it may be because if you notice there are some fingers at the top of the photograph apparently pulling a flap of scalp forward, and I think the flap was being pulled over that opening when they took the pictures. Several years later I was told by one of the people who took some of the photographs that that was not the case; that that hand in the picture was not pulling any flap of scalp up over the skull.
MR. GUNN Do you remember who it was who told you that?
MCCLELLAND: It was one of the men who was taking the photographs. I met him here in Dallas when this fellow who's written these kind of, I think crazy books, David Livingston The High Treason and The High Treason II he had a--
MR. GUNN It's Harry Livingston.
DR. MCCLELLAND: Harry Livingston yeah. He had a -- David Livingston was the guy in Africa, yeah.
DR. PETERS: I presume.
MR. GUNN: Would that be Stringer or Riebe?
DR. MCCLELLAND: It's one or the other, uh-huh, and he said that that was not what was being done. I had always assumed it was
because knew what the -- that the hole was there.
DR. PETERS: Right.
DR. MCCLELLAND: So it wasn't a -- well, maybe I'm wrong. I mean, not unless I've taken leave of my senses entirely. There was a hole there and so my explanation of what was happening is here's this hand up in the wound and they sort of pulled it up for some reason. I don't know why, but that was sort of an interesting sequence of events separated by several years.
MR. GUNN: Dr. Peters, you've been nodding your head.
DR. PETERS: Well,
I would certainly agree with what .Bob said. It was my
thought exactly that they just kind of pulled that flap back into place and took a picture so they could show how it looked with things restored as much as possible and it just -- a flap just kind of -- had been torn back and now they were just kind of putting it back and snapping a picture. For what reason, I don't know."
Here we have 2 doctors who saw the wound referring to a large flap of scalp. "they just pulled that flap back in to place", which indicates there was a large flap of scalp. The fractures/holes through the skull of JFK did not have dimensionally identical, corresponding holes through the scalp, with identical sized pieces of scalp missing. Instead there was severely torn scalp left, no longer attached to the skull underneath. Such areas of loose scalp will tend to fall and pull away from their proper position, but would easily be pulled up again.
Yes I see that a photographer supposedly said they weren't doing that, but if not then why is the gloved hand in that peculiar position? It is gripping something, thats not the position the hand would be in if they were merely holding up the head. 