Autopsy Photos and X-rays

[Gary Craig]

Simply wrong to characterize the Clark Panel's findings as supportive of two bullets hitting the head of the President:

    "The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head
     was struck from behind a single projectile. It entered the
     occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm.
     above the external occipital protuberance."

All the Panel did was determine the true location of a wound Humes erroneously sited through palpation. Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP (is there a ruler with "slightly" markings?)

"Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP"

I believe Humes stated it wasn't possible to determine the exact location of the wound in the skull from the available photo's. The autopsy doctors had requested  a photographic record be made of the entrance and exit of the EOP wound in the skull after the brain was removed and the scalp was retracted. Those are the photos that were, and still are missing when they reviewed the autopsy materials prior to the Clark Panel.
To claim that "slightly higher" means 4 inches, the amount the Clark Panel said the autopsy head wound location was off, paints the autopsy doctors completely incompetent and the autopsy a farce or the Clark Panel a desperate attempt by the government to counter criticism of the WCR. Pick your poison.  IMO

[Royell Storing]

"Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP"

I believe Humes stated it wasn't possible to determine the exact location of the wound in the skull from the available photo's. The autopsy doctors had requested  a photographic record be made of the entrance and exit of the EOP wound in the skull after the brain was removed and the scalp was retracted. Those are the photos that were, and still are missing when they reviewed the autopsy materials prior to the Clark Panel.
To claim that "slightly higher" means 4 inches, the amount the Clark Panel said the autopsy head wound location was off, paints the autopsy doctors completely incompetent and the autopsy a farce or the Clark Panel a desperate attempt by the government to counter criticism of the WCR. Pick your poison.  IMO

    55+ years after the Fact and I am still waiting for a logical explanation as to WHAT Humes was trying to display in the Autopsy Photo where that gloved hand is pulling the hair of JFK. All that did was completely Hide the entire back of JFK's head/skull.

[Gary Craig]

Prior to the four-inch-discrepancy (actually the correction of a palpation error) business, almost all the WC critics criticized the Bethesda doctors as incompetent and unqualified. The CTs changed their tune because they want the EOP in-shoot to be real as it challenges the LN conclusion.

I bet Finck in 1967 thought there "should have been" a photo taken of the outside table of the rear skull after reflection. In reference to the lateral X-ray that was examined at autopsy, they seem to have only studied the metallic trail.

    "Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments
     along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small
     occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge."

They had Humes' word that he located the wound "slightly above" something his fingers (or a finger) felt (it wouldn't surprised me he felt to behind the head as the body lay supine) was the EOP. The X-rays examined by the Clark Panel and HSCA say the metallic line of fragments are high in the skull, much higher than the EOP, and that they correspond to the "cowlick" wound.

Interesting that they made a big deal in the autopsy report about the metallic fragment line corresponding to the near-EOP entry wound, but all they say about the metal fragment line in 1967 is:

    "The x-ray films established that there were small metallic fragments in the head."

I think they thought they had the head wound established rather quickly and easily through Humes' palpation and the documentation of the head wound with photography and X-rays. They were more concerned and mystified with the back wound and where the bullet went.

Humes

------

------

------


---------------------------

Finck

-------------

[Gary Craig]

Is one of the words illegible in the area lassoed in red?

Yes

[Royell Storing]

Is he "pulling the hair" or merely supporting the head with a thumb inside the cranium?

   Are You Now claiming JFK's Scalp was still attached to the skull?? Also, that gloved Thumb looks like it would be close to the Top of the head and probably above the Eye or close to between the eyes.  Are You sure You want that thumb "inside the cranium"? Be careful. 

[John Mytton]

JohnM

[Royell Storing]

So the doctor has his fore-fingers gripping the scalp on the rear of the head and the thumb part reaches back to the inside of the frontal bone between the eyes?

     For starters, a Hand has Only 1 Forefinger. You claimed the Thumb was "INSIDE the cranium". If you are sticking to that, then this missing skull/cavity in the Top of JFK 's head would need to be explained.