As for the autopsy photos and X-rays, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.
The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from above and behind.
The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from behind.
The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck from behind.
As for the autopsy photos and X-rays, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.
The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from above and behind.
The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from behind.
The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck from behind.
The re-examination of the autopsy materials and the formation of the Clark Panel was in response to criticism of the WC.
The entrance wound in the back of JFK's skull slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP doesn't line up with a shooter on the 6th
floor SE corner of the TSBD. The Clark Panel moved the wound 4 inches up on JFK's skull, from the EOP to the crown, to accommodate a
6th floor shooter. Dr. Finck noted in his after action report of the review of the x-rays and photos that the photo of the inside of JFK's
skull, that was made to show the EOP entrance wound, was not among the material reviewed.
In the so-called "Military Review", the three pathologists who did the autopsy at Bethesda authenticated the autopsy photos and X-rays, but included the following admission:
"Due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation
of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be
photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly
higher than its actually measured site."
A year later, using the same photographs and X-rays, the Clark Panel determined that the skull in-shoot was indeed higher than "its actually measured site". Some 10 cm-or-so higher. But the Clark Panel had no need for ridiculous face-saving explanations for the now-high-position in-shoot like "manual lifting" and "fractures of the underlying bone".
There's no indication that the Bethesda team exposed the surface of the occipital bone (that involves severing a multitude of attachments at the EOP) at autopsy. It seems unlikely that they manually and visually measured the in-shoot relative to the EOP, instead using palpation to find what Humes assumed was the EOP.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/dox/JFK%20F-307.jpg)
The occipital bone has no midline on the external surface above the EOP, so a measurement from the midline of the exposed skull could only be if the in-shoot was in the parietal bone. It would seem to me that they mistook a bump below the scalp for the EOP; they suggest a reason with "fractures of the underlying bone".
A fracture edge or small piece of loose bone between the scalp and skull could easily be mistook for the EOP. A clear admission from Humes would have undermined his profession esteem. And so he was allowed to dance around the issue in interviews with the HSCA and JAMA. No one challenged him and Boswell. They got away with it while making fun of JFK researcher "amateurs" who essentially defended their lower entry site.
Humes
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0119a.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0107b.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0056a.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0050a.jpg)
---------------------------
Finck
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shaw1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fincksreport.jpg%202_1.jpg)
What's the point of all this? The scalp was reflected but not to the level of the EOP. Finck claims to have seen the opening on the exterior of the skull, which simply means the scalp was reflected to show the "cowlick" in-shoot. Doesn't say the scalp reflection exposed the EOP and that they visually associated the in-shoot with a direct observation of the EOP. Humes used palpation to find a bump below the scalp he mistook for the "EOP". The photographs and X-rays revealed the mistake.
All 3 autopsy doctors said the wound was at the EOP not in the cowlick.
Humes said they examined the wound closely, measured it and had photos taken of it.
The Clark Panel was created in response to criticism of the WCR.
One criticism was a EOP entrance wound in JFK's skull doesn't work with a shooter firing from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD.
The Panel moved the wound 4 inches to the cowlick. A spot that works with a 6th floor shooter.
The photos the autopsy doctors had taken showing the location of the wound at the EOP disappeared from the archives.
The report says the wound was "slightly above" the EOP, which seems to me consistent with palpation and making an unmeasured guess. The only measurement actually made is lateral from the mid-line. The area of the occipital bone above the EOP has no external mid-line. There is, however, a mid-line (or suture line) laterally over from the "cowlick" wound. The Clark Panel determined from autopsy materials authenticated by the Bethesda autopsy doctors that the in-shoot was significantly higher than the EOP.
I think Humes urged a review. Possibly Finck and Boswell told Humes than he had make a serious palpation error and that they would sign-off on the "Military Review" if Humes consented to a new review.
Doesn't Larry Strudivan think the bullet entered the skull near the EOP per Humes' location? I'm pretty sure he's able to make it work with a SN shot.
By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?
The "Military Review" says no materials are missing. They therefore took a picture of the scalp in-shoot only. After the scalp was reflected and the brain removed, they took one view of the interior of the cranium. The skull was severely fractured and I don't think they could just keep reflecting the rear of the scalp to the EOP without pieces falling off.
I wonder why Humes et al keep referencing the bullet entered the skull from behind and somewhat above? I think they may have been comparing the skull in-shoot level with the gaping wound. An entry at the EOP level doesn't work as well as one higher. An angle between an EOP level entry wound to the gaping wound level would best be described as from behind and BELOW.
The famous "Brylcreem" photo of the intact back of the head was contradicted by everyone who saw the back of the head in Dallas.
Well actually there were at least two photos of the back of the Presidents head. When two of these stereoscopic photos are combined we see every pixel, skin crease, blemishes, individual hairs and general head shape is correctly depth mapped across both images meaning that both photos were taken of JFK's authenticated head and both show only a single bullet entrance wound.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5PMz9F9/JFKBOH.gif)
And as for Dallas eyewitnesses, the very first eyewitnesses to be interviewed only hours later on TV all describe the same damage as seen in the Zapruder film, X Rays, Autopsy photos, etc etc..
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNchjxf4/Dealey-Plaza-Eyewitnesses2-zpsc1d78c8b.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MKh1mx4d/alotofevidence2.jpg)
JohnM
Correction: What you should say is, "both photos were taken of................" the SAME HEAD.
When the entire set of autopsy photos is examined as a whole, like a jigsaw puzzle each photo has links in other photos.
JohnM
But according to the people who took the photos, we haven't seen the entire set.
So you agree that what we do have is authentic?
No.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5PMz9F9/JFKBOH.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VvpqHbfH/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)
No, it's always Kennedy. The HSCA did an extensive study on the authenticity of the Autopsy Photos and here is a few examples of their proof;
First of all they measured all the individual facial parts and by using photogrammetric rules they calculated the positions and distances between skin blemishes, creases, ears, eyes, neck, mouth, nose, chin etc.
(https://i.postimg.cc/FsXXwCYG/measuringjfk-zps38b4509b-1.jpg)
For instance here's Kennedy's neck creases which line up from front to back.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9X7j8HQr/jfkneckcrease-zpse53faea0-1.jpg)
And we also can see a random mark on Kennedy's back which is repeated in the top down photo.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTgMWqqW/backbloodstripe-zps00e18caf-1.jpg)
When the entire set of autopsy photos is examined as a whole, like a jigsaw puzzle each photo has links in other photos.
Btw isn't getting some other guy and performing plastic surgery on him, then blowing his brains out a little extreme?
JohnM
The discussion centered on the "Brylcreem Photo", and you then post photos of everything But the Brylcream Photo. It's obvious why. Is it possible that what you are innocently labeling a, "Random mark on Kennedy's back" = BULLET HOLE?
The discussion centered on the "Brylcreem Photo", and you then post photos of everything But the Brylcream Photo. It's obvious why. Is it possible that what you are innocently labeling a, "Random mark on Kennedy's back" = BULLET HOLE?
The discussion centered on the "Brylcreem Photo", and you then post photos of everything But the Brylcream Photo. It's obvious why.
Is it possible that what you are innocently labeling a, "Random mark on Kennedy's back" = BULLET HOLE?
And his evidence that the "random marks" are "the same" is left as an exercise for the reader. Much like the magic rifle gouge.
And his evidence that the "random marks" are "the same" is left as an exercise for the reader. Much like the magic rifle gouge.
I like his Slam Dunk ID = a Wrinkle on the neck. Angela Lansbury sleuth work.
The report says the wound was "slightly above" the EOP, which seems to me consistent with palpation and making an unmeasured guess. The only measurement actually made is lateral from the mid-line. The area of the occipital bone above the EOP has no external mid-line. There is, however, a mid-line (or suture line) laterally over from the "cowlick" wound. The Clark Panel determined from autopsy materials authenticated by the Bethesda autopsy doctors that the in-shoot was significantly higher than the EOP.
I think Humes urged a review.** Possibly Finck and Boswell told Humes than he had make a serious palpation error and that they would sign-off on the "Military Review" if Humes consented to a new review.
Doesn't Larry Strudivan think the bullet entered the skull near the EOP per Humes' location? I'm pretty sure he's able to make it work with a SN shot.
By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?
The "Military Review" says no materials are missing. They therefore took a picture of the scalp in-shoot only. After the scalp was reflected and the brain removed, they took one view of the interior of the cranium. The skull was severely fractured and I don't think they could just keep reflecting the rear of the scalp to the EOP without pieces falling off.
I wonder why Humes et al keep referencing the bullet entered the skull from behind and somewhat above? I think they may have been comparing the skull in-shoot level with the gaping wound. An entry at the EOP level doesn't work as well as one higher. An angle between an EOP level entry wound to the gaping wound level would best be described as from behind and BELOW.
** It was actually Boswell who wrote the letter to the Justice Dept. urging a review. It was dated January 26, 1968, a full year after the "Military Review".
That 1967 three-pathologist "Military Review" was done at the request of the Justice Dept.
"The undersigned physicians have been requested by the Department of Justice to examine
the x-rays and photographs for the purpose of determining whether they are consistent
with the autopsy report."
Concerning his 1968 letter, Boswell claimed to the JFK Assassination Records Review Board:
"I was asked by ... one of the attorneys for the Justice Department that I write them
a letter and request a civilian group be appointed by the Justice Department, I believe,
or the President or somebody. And I did write a letter to him, Carl Eardley."
That seems strange since the "Military Review" came about as a direct request from Justice.
"By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?"
No, that's not what I mean. Although there are competent people who believe they were, I'm not qualified to know either way.
By moved I mean the Panel decided a trail of metal particles across the top part of JFK's head x-ray was the path of a bullet that entered
at the cowlick. If they aren't fake the conclusions reached at the autopsy and by the Panel indicate 2 bullets hit JFK in the head. One
entering at the EOP and one above that traveled across the top of the skull, leaving a trail of metal particles.
IMO
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/XrayLateral.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/md73_0001a.jpg)
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
"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
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.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/dhor-insapp-01_0001_0153.jpg)
Is one of the words illegible in the area lassoed in red?
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.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_f-3%28n15%29.jpg) | (https://i2.wp.com/thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/jfkcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg) |
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_f-3%28n15%29.jpg) (https://i2.wp.com/thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/jfkcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg)
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.
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.
You can't see there's a gaping hole in the skull where the thumb is? The opening goes from above the right ear to about the apex.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1378740112111/hsca/dox/skull-fragmentation.jpg?height=400&width=294)
That's how I see it and how the HSCA depicted it. I don't what the heck you're seeing.
Also I don't see where the hair is being pulled or scalp held up. I think the scalp was generally attached near and below the skull in-shoot until reflection.
The illustration you have posted does Not show an "opening that goes from above the Right Ear to about the apex". That illustration shows almost the entire TOP of the Skull being blown off. Please STOP posting that which you Know is Incorrect.
Nobody is bothered by the Parkland and Bethesda witness testimony???? Totally contradicts everything those sham panels concocted. How many are aware of how much power Hoover and Johnson wielded in altering, eliminating, and ignoring vital evidence?
Is anyone troubled at how Specter intimidated and led witnesses on numerous occasions when they presented evidence that contradicted his moronic SBT?Only the Warren Commission supporters believe Specter.
Nobody is bothered by the Parkland and Bethesda witness testimony???? Totally contradicts everything those sham panels concocted. How many are aware of how much power Hoover and Johnson wielded in altering, eliminating, and ignoring vital evidence? Is anyone troubled at how Specter intimidated and led witnesses on numerous occasions when they presented evidence that contradicted his moronic SBT?