Released File Shows J. Edgar Hoover Acknowledged Large Rear Head Wound

[Michael T. Griffith]

I would further note that Hoover's testimony was in the context of expanding on his remark that the doctors at Parkland had originally thought the throat wound was a frontal wound. He wasn't purporting to discuss the head wound per se. I see absolutely no significance to the alteration of his testimony. As previously noted, deponents are always afforded an opportunity to make changes to the transcript. Given all the medical evidence regarding the head wound, I see absolutely no significance to a clarification from "the back of the skull" to the more accurate "portions of the skull." The notion that the change was made because "OH, MY GOD, THE DODDERING OLD DIRECTOR LET THE TRUTH SLIP!!!" is just conspiracy nonsense of the first magnitude.

I think this is further proof that you have no objectivity on the JFK assassination. "Portions of the skull" was not "the more accurate." It was the least accurate and was intentionally vague. Did you miss the news we now know that the JFK autopsy photos that Saundra Spencer developed showed a large wound in the back of the head? Did you miss the news we now know that JFK autopsy mortician Tom Robinson drew a diagram of the large head wound for the HSCA and put the wound in the back of the head? Did you miss the news that we now know that both Sibert and O'Neill told the HSCA about the large back-of-head wound, and that they even diagrammed it for the HSCA and drew it in the right-rear part of the skull?

Did you miss the news that the two other morticians, John Van Hoesen and Joe Hagen, also said there was a large wound in the back of the head? During the two hours when they saw and handled the body to prepare it for burial, couldn't those three morticians tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head, with the EOP, rear hairline, and the right ear as three obvious reference points? Really?

How about the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and packed it with cotton before the body was placed in the casket? Couldn't they distinguish between a wound above the right ear and a wound that included at least 1/4th of the right side of the occipital bone? They all said the wound was in the right occipital-parietal area. How about funeral worker Aubrey Rike, who helped put JFK's body in the casket and could feel the edges of the wound in the back of the head--could he just not tell the difference between the back of the head and the right ear?

How about SS agent Clint Hill, who saw the wound for several minutes from within a few feet on the way to Parkland and who then saw the wound again at Bethesda when he was sent there for the express purpose of viewing and recording JFK's wounds, and who said in his first report that the wound was in the right-rear part of the skull? And on and on we could go.

Sibert and O'Neill were both clear that the "surgery to the head area" in their memorandum was simply reporting a remark Humes had made while examining the body.

As if this somehow explains the remark. Yes, of course he made the comment while examining the body. Nobody has said otherwise. What about the fact that Boswell made a similar remark? 

They both thought he might have made the remark because a large piece of skull was obviously missing.

You're omitting the fact that Robinson saw Humes sawing the skull before the autopsy began, and that the body covertly arrived at least 40 minutes before the start of the official autopsy.

O'Neill was a firm WC/LN supporter. While Sibert seems to have been more CT-oriented, I just read both of their ARRB testimonies and didn't see anything that would have really startled the WC even though Horne was Rather Obvious - to put it mildly - in his effort to get Sibert to say what he wanted him to say.

When you wrote this, did you just forget that O'Neill and Sibert both flatly rejected the SBT and insisted the back wound was several inches below the throat wound? Did you forget that O'Neill and Sibert both reported the fact that the autopsy doctors positively determined that the back wound had no exit point, a fact confirmed by ARRB releases? Did you forget that O'Neill told the HSCA that "there was no doubt in anyone's mind" that the back-wound bullet had no exit point and must have fallen out in Dallas, and that he was "positive" the back wound had no exit point? Did you forget that O'Neill and Sibert said the back-of-head autopsy photos definitely did not look like JFK's head during the autopsy, and that O'Neill even said the photo had been "doctored"?

And yet you claim that you can't see any reason the WC would not have wanted them to testify about these things! I honestly wonder if you actually read Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB depositions. If you did, how did you miss their statements about the back wound and the head wound?

This is all just all-too-typical CT grasping at straws. "OH, MY GOD, THEY ALTERED HOOVER'S TESTIMONY!!!" Big yawn.

No, it is just your usual grasping, reaching, and straining to explain away, of just ignore, evidence that destroys your version of the shooting.

[Lance Payette]

I think this is further proof that you have no objectivity on the JFK assassination. "Portions of the skull" was not "the more accurate." It was the least accurate and was intentionally vague. Did you miss the news we now know that the JFK autopsy photos that Saundra Spencer developed showed a large wound in the back of the head? Did you miss the news we now know that JFK autopsy mortician Tom Robinson drew a diagram of the large head wound for the HSCA and put the wound in the back of the head? Did you miss the news that we now know that both Sibert and O'Neill told the HSCA about the large back-of-head wound, and that they even diagrammed it for the HSCA and drew it in the right-rear part of the skull?

Did you miss the news that the two other morticians, John Van Hoesen and Joe Hagen, also said there was a large wound in the back of the head? During the two hours when they saw and handled the body to prepare it for burial, couldn't those three morticians tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head, with the EOP, rear hairline, and the right ear as three obvious reference points? Really?

How about the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and packed it with cotton before the body was placed in the casket? Couldn't they distinguish between a wound above the right ear and a wound that included at least 1/4th of the right side of the occipital bone? They all said the wound was in the right occipital-parietal area. How about funeral worker Aubrey Rike, who helped put JFK's body in the casket and could feel the edges of the wound in the back of the head--could he just not tell the difference between the back of the head and the right ear?

How about SS agent Clint Hill, who saw the wound for several minutes from within a few feet on the way to Parkland and who then saw the wound again at Bethesda when he was sent there for the express purpose of viewing and recording JFK's wounds, and who said in his first report that the wound was in the right-rear part of the skull? And on and on we could go.

As if this somehow explains the remark. Yes, of course he made the comment while examining the body. Nobody has said otherwise. What about the fact that Boswell made a similar remark? 

You're omitting the fact that Robinson saw Humes sawing the skull before the autopsy began, and that the body covertly arrived at least 40 minutes before the start of the official autopsy.

When you wrote this, did you just forget that O'Neill and Sibert both flatly rejected the SBT and insisted the back wound was several inches below the throat wound? Did you forget that O'Neill and Sibert both reported the fact that the autopsy doctors positively determined that the back wound had no exit point, a fact confirmed by ARRB releases? Did you forget that O'Neill told the HSCA that "there was no doubt in anyone's mind" that the back-wound bullet had no exit point and must have fallen out in Dallas, and that he was "positive" the back wound had no exit point? Did you forget that O'Neill and Sibert said the back-of-head autopsy photos definitely did not look like JFK's head during the autopsy, and that O'Neill even said the photo had been "doctored"?

And yet you claim that you can't see any reason the WC would not have wanted them to testify about these things! I honestly wonder if you actually read Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB depositions. If you did, how did you miss their statements about the back wound and the head wound?

No, it is just your usual grasping, reaching, and straining to explain away, of just ignore, evidence that destroys your version of the shooting.

Michael, I am discovering what others have discovered: it is simply impossible to have a rational discussion with someone such as you. You have amassed such a constellation of dubious "facts" and "what about this, what about that" arguments that it's just an endless game of Whack-a-Mole.

Let's start with this: Why were your bombshell witnesses, Sibert and O'Neill, NEVER EVEN CONTACTED BY GARRISON? Sibert specifically told the ARRB he'd had "no contact whatsoever" with the Garrison team, and I can find no evidence that O'Neill had any contact whatsoever. For better or worse, Arlen Specter did interview both of them with a stenographer present, and the HSCA and ARRB interviewed both. But Garrison, hot to prove the WR was a sham did not. Hmmmm ... how does that factor into your Conspiracy Logic?

Is it just possible Sibert and O'Neill are considerably less "bombshell" than you believe them to be?

They are two FBI agents who observed the autopsy, that and nothing more. Their 302 was, I am sure, quite accurate. Sibert, the more conspiratorial of the two, told the ARRB he understood why the WC might have thought it was "inadvisable" to call them. Their report reflected confusion about the back and throat wounds that was not cleared up until Humes' call to Parkland and the autopsy report was revised to reflect what he had learned. Why would the WC want to rehash all that with two mere FBI agents?

Both reported that Humes' statement about "surgery to the head area" was made either while the body was still in the casket or immediately upon being placed on the autopsy table, in the same sentence in which he noted the tracheotomy incision. Both said they merely reported Humes' words. Sibert speculated the statement was made because pieces of skull were obviously missing. Neither suggested this was any big deal or that they had actually observed such surgery - EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, in fact. If Humes had surreptitiously sawed the skull open, why would he have noted this in the presence of two FBI agents and others? Duh.

Both rejected or at least questioned the SBT - OK, so what? Lots of people, including me, have doubts about it. Sibert and O'Neill have no more expertise in this area than I do. They are, or were, just two more voices in the debate.

Lastly, both said some of the autopsy photos they were shown appeared to show the head wound and hair considerably cleaned up versus what they had observed. Yes, this is obvious to everyone in those photos and drawings (the ones with the ruler). Again, so what? Boswell explained what was done for those photos. Sibert seemed to place the wound higher up and more centrally located than is the case, but he also said the wound was so bloody and matted with hair that it was difficult to discern the outlines. He also described Boswell's autopsy drawing as "fairly accurate." Again, the location and nature of the wounds is established by photos, x-rays and the testimony of observers with medical expertise. Who cares what two FBI agents think they saw?

You are doing what CTers always do: You assemble your constellation of dubious "facts" by cherry-picking statements without regard to their context, without regard to whether the persons making those statements were really qualified to make them, and without regard to whether (or how many) persons who actually were better qualified made conflicting statements. Evidence that can't be refuted, such as photos and x-rays, is all "altered," "faked," or doesn't actually show what those with medical expertise say it shows.

This is precisely what criminal defense attorneys do. They don't have to care whether what they say is plausible or even makes any sense. They just throw in the kitchen sink and hope the jury finds reasonable doubt "somewhere in there." This is not how historical truth is arrived at, or even how a rational debate is conducted, and I'm not going to play an endless and tedious game of Whack-a-Mole with a one-dimensional conspiracy fanatic.

[Tom Graves]

[...]

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Please freshen my memory:

How many bad guys do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, the planting of false evidence, the getting-away, the altering of the photos, films and x-rays, and the all-important (and continuing!!!) cover up?

"Just" 20 to 30?

Really?

LOL!

-- Tom

[Lance Payette]

   That 2 hr presentation that Doug Horne posted on You Tube about a month ago is anything but "boring". We Now have documented Images of that Navy Ambulance and the Pickup Truck that carried one of the JFK Honor Guards being together at the Morgue Dock. This validates Lifton's story of that Navy ambulance being chased by the pickup truck carrying the JFK Honor Guard. Why would Bethesda have a morgue dock access that is barely wider than a vehicle? Is it to keep everything out of sight when necessary? Like on 11/22/63.  SOMEBODY took those B/W photos of the morgue dock and that same Somebody saw a lot of what went on back there on 11/22/63. Ever ask yourself ?: (1) Why the Navy Ambulance carrying an alleged dead POTUS would just sit outside the Bethesda Hospital for roughly 10 minutes? Just sit there? and, (2) On the 2 B/W Photos posted by Horne, who/what are those 2 Navy Officers saluting? Nobody was allegedly inside the pictured Navy Ambulance and the Ambulance Hood was allegedly stone cold. It had been sitting there awhile. Are these Navy Officers saluting a coffin coming toward the Morgue Dock from another direction? Another alleyway? Another coffin?  ALL of this New Information/Bethesda Morgue Dock Images are anything but "boring".

Wow, you need to start a whole new forum devoted just to those photos!  It was Little Old Me, you will recall, who actually posted the Horne video here.

The photos are simply items of historical interest. They depict absolutely nothing inconsistent with the WR or the LN narrative. They are of no more or less evidentiary value than if a new photo of Oswald in third grade or Jackie at Love Field surfaces next week. They don't require any discussion or debate at all.

The Horne video is, as I said, well-done and kind of interesting in terms of clarifying the layout of Bethesda. But it just rehashes lunatic fringe conspiracy stuff that has been discredited to the vanishing point and beyond. Anyone is free to watch it on YouTube, as I have, but it likewise requires no discussion or debate unless someone simply wants to regurgitate and rehash arguments that have been gurgitated (is that a word?) and hashed ad nauseam.

[Royell Storing]

Wow, you need to start a whole new forum devoted just to those photos!  It was Little Old Me, you will recall, who actually posted the Horne video here.

The photos are simply items of historical interest. They depict absolutely nothing inconsistent with the WR or the LN narrative. They are of no more or less evidentiary value than if a new photo of Oswald in third grade or Jackie at Love Field surfaces next week. They don't require any discussion or debate at all.

The Horne video is, as I said, well-done and kind of interesting in terms of clarifying the layout of Bethesda. But it just rehashes lunatic fringe conspiracy stuff that has been discredited to the vanishing point and beyond. Anyone is free to watch it on YouTube, as I have, but it likewise requires no discussion or debate unless someone simply wants to regurgitate and rehash arguments that have been gurgitated (is that a word?) and hashed ad nauseam.

         I will be kind here and just say You seem to take things at face value. Just speaking for myself, those 2 B/W Photos were brand new to my eyes. Having an image of that pickup truck carrying 1 of the JFK Honor Guards does validate a large part of the Lifton revelation of that Honor Guard being ditched by the Navy Ambulance carrying the JFK Ceremonial Casket. And the "alley entrance" to the Bethesda Morgue Dock that we see in these same photos provides Proof of at least 1 covert avenue to permit the unloading of a coffin from an ambulance and then quickly wheeling it into the Bethesda Morgue sight unseen. (Even the JFK Honor Guard had trouble finding the Navy Ambulance carrying the ceremonial casket when it was tucked inside this alley). You fail to grasp the importance of these photos also showing 2 USN Officers saluting something/someone out of camera view. Is there yet another coffin at car bumper level being wheeled toward/into the Bethesda Morgue?  I seriously doubt that if the body of JFK were inside that ceremonial casket, it would have sat at the curb for roughly 10 minutes outside of the Bethesda Hospital. 

[Michael T. Griffith]

Michael, I am discovering what others have discovered: it is simply impossible to have a rational discussion with someone such as you. You have amassed such a constellation of dubious "facts" and "what about this, what about that" arguments that it's just an endless game of Whack-a-Mole.

This describes you, not me, to a T. This is exactly what you do, among other evasions and faulty reasoning.

Let's start with this: Why were your bombshell witnesses, Sibert and O'Neill, NEVER EVEN CONTACTED BY GARRISON? Sibert specifically told the ARRB he'd had "no contact whatsoever" with the Garrison team, and I can find no evidence that O'Neill had any contact whatsoever. But Garrison, hot to prove the WR was a sham did not. Hmmmm ... how does that factor into your Conspiracy Logic?

This is just silly. I mean, you must be kidding. So your argument is, that, gee, since Garrison didn't interview Sibert and O'Neill they must not have had any important evidence? Really? Garrison didn't interview the autopsy morticians, either. Gee, I guess they had nothing important to say, right? Garrison didn't interview any of the medical technicians at the autopsy, either. Well, gosh, I guess that proves they had nothing worthwhile to report, hey? Garrison didn't interview the Navy photographic technician, Saundra Spencer, who developed autopsy photos that were not included in the official collection of autopsy photos. Well, shoot, then we can just toss aside her historic disclosures--never mind that they're corroborated by dozens of witnesses, including one of the other photographers, the morticians, several of the medical technicians, and the radiologist, right?

For better or worse, Arlen Specter did interview both of them with a stenographer present. . . .

Yeah, and why did Specter bury that interview and exclude it from the WC volumes, hey? You know that it wasn't released until years later, right? Gee, why was that?

and the HSCA and ARRB interviewed both.

Yeah, and their HSCA interviews would still be buried if the ARRB had not forced their release. Never mind that fact, right?

Yes, of course the ARRB interviewed them. And?

Is it just possible Sibert and O'Neill are considerably less "bombshell" than you believe them to be?

Well, then, why did Specter bury the contents of his interview with them? Why didn't Specter call them to testify to the Commission? Why was Hoover's acknowledgement of a large back-of-head wound changed to the vague "portions of the skull" statement? Why didn't the WC acknowledge that both Sibert and O'Neill insisted the back wound was several inches below the throat wound?

They are two FBI agents who observed the autopsy, that and nothing more.

Yeah, who cares what they saw?! After all, they were "only" among the 50-some people on the entire planet who got a prolonged, close-range look at JFK's wounds!

Their 302 was, I am sure, quite accurate. Sibert, the more conspiratorial of the two, told the ARRB he understood why the WC might have thought it was "inadvisable" to call them.

To anyone except brainwashed WC believers, it is obvious why the Commission did not call them as witnesses.

Their report reflected confusion about the back and throat wounds that was not cleared up until Humes' call to Parkland and the autopsy report was revised to reflect what he had learned.

You again rely on debunked mythology, on myths that were debunked over 20 years ago. Did you just miss the news that a former director of two NIH institutes, Dr. Robert Livingston, confirmed that he told Humes about the throat wound before the autopsy? Did you miss the news that the ARRB releases prove there was no "confusion about the back and throat wounds" but that the pathologists established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point? Did you miss the news that ARRB releases reveal that the autopsy doctors removed the chest organs and positioned the body "every which way" to enable and facilitate the probing, and that people near the autopsy table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity? And on and on and on we could go.

You guys just refuse to face facts that destroy your mythical version of the shooting. It's like dealing with cultists who are confronted with hard evidence that proves their beliefs are false.

Both reported that Humes' statement about "surgery to the head area" was made either while the body was still in the casket or immediately upon being placed on the autopsy table, in the same sentence in which he noted the tracheotomy incision. Both said they merely reported Humes' words. Sibert speculated the statement was made because pieces of skull were obviously missing. Neither suggested this was any big deal or that they had actually observed such surgery - EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE, in fact. If Humes had surreptitiously sawed the skull open, why would he have noted this in the presence of two FBI agents and others? Duh.

Duh, indeed. He said this to cover his tracks, to pretend that he knew nothing about any pre-autopsy surgery to the head. I guess you're saying that Robinson was just lying when he said he saw Humes sawing the skull before the autopsy?

Both rejected or at least questioned the SBT - OK, so what? Lots of people, including me, have doubts about it. Sibert and O'Neill have no more expertise in this area than I do. They are, or were, just two more voices in the debate.

More silliness. Well, unless you were at the autopsy, that is. You see, Sibert and O'Neill have a lot more expertise than you do because they got a prolonged look at the back wound from close range and also witnessed the probing of the back wound. And, umm, just a reminder that Sibert and O'Neill rejected the SBT because, as they themselves stated, they knew that the back wound was several inches below the throat wound, that the back wound was far too low to have made the throat wound.

But, nah, you can't see any reason that Specter would not have wanted them to reveal this to the WC, especially since three of the seven WC members didn't buy the SBT either! Yeah, makes perfect sense.

Lastly, both said some of the autopsy photos they were shown appeared to show the head wound and hair considerably cleaned up versus what they had observed. Yes, this is obvious to everyone in those photos and drawings (the ones with the ruler). Again, so what? Boswell explained what was done for those photos. Sibert seemed to place the wound higher up and more centrally located than is the case, but he also said the wound was so bloody and matted with hair that it was difficult to discern the outlines. He also described Boswell's autopsy drawing as "fairly accurate." Again, the location and nature of the wounds is established by photos, x-rays and the testimony of observers with medical expertise. Who cares what two FBI agents think they saw?

I suspect you know this is a severely misleading and incomplete portrayal of the facts on this issue. O'Neill said the photo had been "doctored." Both men verbally and in drawing located the large head wound in the right-rear part of the skull. When Boswell himself diagrammed the large head wound for the ARRB, he extended the wound significantly into the occiput--another fact that WC apologists continue to studiously ignore. Boswell also told both the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound in the occiput was contained in a skull fragment that arrived during the autopsy, which proves there was missing occipital bone and that the rear head entry wound was where the pathologists said it was (and not a staggering 4 inches higher in the cowlick).

You are doing what CTers always do: You assemble your constellation of dubious "facts" by cherry-picking statements without regard to their context, without regard to whether the persons making those statements were really qualified to make them, and without regard to whether (or how many) persons who actually were better qualified made conflicting statements. Evidence that can't be refuted, such as photos and x-rays, is all "altered," "faked," or doesn't actually show what those with medical expertise say it shows.

More outdated drivel and delusion. You're the one who repeatedly cherry-picks and ignores context.

For starters, the autopsy x-rays drastically contradict the autopsy brain photos. The x-rays show a large amount of missing brain in the right-frontal region, but the brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing from the entire brain, not just from the right-frontal region. Either the brain photos are false or the skull x-rays are false, or both.

Several medical experts, including a neuroscientist, a forensic pathologist, and two radiation oncologists, have established that optical density (OD) measurements prove that the autopsy x-rays contain undeniable evidence of alteration. Stunningly, Dr. Finck himself questioned how the autopsy photo of the back of the head had been established as having been taken at the autopsy when the HSCA FPP was using the photo to try to get him to repudiate the autopsy placement of the rear head entry wound--another fact that WC apologists continue to studiously ignore.

This is precisely what criminal defense attorneys do. They don't have to care whether what they say is plausible or even makes any sense. They just throw in the kitchen sink and hope the jury finds reasonable doubt "somewhere in there." This is not how historical truth is arrived at, or even how a rational debate is conducted, and I'm not going to play an endless and tedious game of Whack-a-Mole with a one-dimensional conspiracy fanatic.

I guess you think that such posturing makes up for your obvious inability to deal with the evidence being presented to you. I notice you said nothing about the fact that the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and wrapped the head and body in sheets said the wound was in the right-rear portion of the head. When those nurses were shown the autopsy photo of the back of the head, they firmly rejected it as inaccurate/invalid.

I also notice that you said nothing about the fact that all three of the morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy said the wound was in the back of the head, and that one of those morticians, Robinson, diagrammed the wound for the HSCA and the ARRB. Your only answer is that all three of them could not tell the difference between a gaping wound above the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back that included part of the occiput.

I further notice that you said nothing about the fact that Clint Hill, who got two prolonged looks at the head from close range, and Aubrey Rike, who could actually feel the head wound while helping to put JFK's body in the casket, said the large wound was in the back of the head.

These are cold, hard documented facts that you continue to simply dance around. And every time you're confronted with them, you start posturing about "dubious facts" and "cherry-picked statements," ignoring the fact that over 40 witnesses in three different locations, including the morticians who reassembled the skull, said the large head wound was in the back of the head, and that a number of these witnesses actually drew diagrams of the wound for government investigators, journalists, or private researchers.

Similarly, when faced with the witnesses who got good looks at the back wound and who put the wound several inches below the throat wound, you once again launch into posturing mode and dismiss their accounts, even though their accounts are confirmed by the hard evidence of the rear clothing holes, and also by the autopsy face sheet and the death certificate.

[Tim Nickerson]

Garrison didn't interview the Navy photographic technician, Saundra Styles, who developed autopsy photos that were not included in the official collection of autopsy photos.

Saundra Styles didn't develop autopsy photos. Nor did Saundra Spencer.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-the-autopsy-photographs-of-jfk-part-two

Well, shoot, then we can just toss aside her historic disclosures--never mind that they're corroborated by dozens of witnesses, including one of the other photographers, the morticians, several of the medical technicians, and the radiologist, right?

There were no other photographers. None that were legitimate anyway. The X-Ray techs and the radiologist all confirmed that the X-Rays in the National Archives are authentic.

You again rely on debunked mythology, on myths that were debunked over 20 years ago. Did you just miss the news that a former director of two NIH institutes, Dr. Robert Livingston, confirmed that he told Humes about the throat wound before the autopsy?

From Pat Speer over on the ED forum:

Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's, when he contacted Lifton. Lifton failed to buy into it, so Livingston then contacted Livingstone. The bottom line is that Livingston claimed the small size of the throat wound was discussed by a nurse on the radio, and that this led him to call Humes. The problem is that those studying the news footage and broadcasts have found no record of such an interview. There's also this. Livingston claimed he was friends with the journalist Richard Dudman, and that Dudman could vouch for him. Well, I contacted Dudman and he verified that he'd known Livingston for decades, and that Livingston had talked to him more than once about the Kennedy assassination. But, get this, he had no recollection of Livingston ever claiming he'd talked to Humes, or some such thing. Now, Dudman was quite an old man at this time, so I chose to not come forward with this for fear Fetzer and others would proceed to attack him. (Fetzer is the main proponent of Livingston's credibility on this issue.) In any event, I never felt the need for confronting Fetzer on this seeing as Fetzer discredited Livingston all by himself when he disavowed the transcript of Livingston's testimony in the Crenshaw case (testimony arranged by Fetzer and put into the record by Doug Horne). You see, I actually read the transcript and spotted some clear problems with it. The one thing that comes to mind is that Livingston said he'd decided to come forward in order to 'save the world". Yikes! A retired man in his seventies who comes forward with a bizarre story without any back-up in order to save the world, and is driven to his court testimony by Dr. James Fetzer, the very same Fetzer who believes the airplanes filmed crashing into the twin towers were holograms, and that Paul McCartney is an imposter impersonating the original Paul McCartney.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22980-dr-humes-knew-about-the-throat-wound-the-day-of-the-autopsy

Did you miss the news that the ARRB releases prove there was no "confusion about the back and throat wounds" but that the pathologists established beyond any doubt that the back wound had no exit point?

Post link(s) to those specific releases.

Did you miss the news that mortician Tom Robinson revealed that the back wound was about 6 inches below the throat wound, just as the death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, Sibert and O'Neill, the rear JFK clothing holes, and several other autopsy witnesses confirm?

From the HSCA testimony of Tom Robinson;

Purdy: Specifically, when you say the body, you saw the back,I want to know specifically if either you know there was not a wound from the head down to the waist anywhere on the back, neck or whatever, or that the autopsy work may have either obliterated it or made it not evident
to you that there was such a wound?

Robinson: It miqht have done that, there was - . . but the back itself, there was no wound there, no.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md63.pdf

And, umm, just a reminder that Sibert and O'Neill rejected the SBT because, as they themselves stated, they knew that the back wound was several inches below the throat wound, that the back wound was far too low to have made the throat wound.

Using the posterior autopsy view as a reference, place a mark on the lateral view at the level that you believe the non-fatal entry wound on Kennedy was.

I suspect you know this is a severely misleading and incomplete portrayal of the facts on this issue. O'Neill said the photo had been "doctored."

O'Neill: I specifically do not recall those-I mean, being that clean or that fixed up. To me, it looks like these pictures have been- But if they’ve been identified-positively identified, then, de facto.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Oneill_9-12-97.pdf

For starters, the autopsy x-rays drastically contradict the autopsy brain photos. The x-rays show a large amount of missing brain in the right-frontal region, but the brain photos show only 1-2 ounces of brain tissue missing from the entire brain, not just from the right-frontal region. Either the brain photos are false or the skull x-rays are false, or both.

You need to read Pat Speer's chapters on the X-Rays.

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter18x-rayspecs

Several medical experts, including a neuroscientist, a forensic pathologist, and two radiation oncologists, have established that optical density (OD) measurements prove that the autopsy x-rays contain undeniable evidence of alteration. Stunningly, Dr. Finck himself questioned how the autopsy photo of the back of the head had been established as having been taken at the autopsy when the HSCA FPP was using the photo to try to get him to repudiate the autopsy placement of the rear head entry wound--another fact that WC apologists continue to studiously ignore.

Name the neuroscientist and forensic pathologist who have established that optical density (OD) measurements prove that the autopsy x-rays contain undeniable evidence of alteration.