-
Extremely detailed testimony:
https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/17289/dr-charles-j-jim-carrico-oral-history?ctx=30c8eb6c22dd7f434cc4b7ab1d66bba80fa97998&idx=525
-
Thanks Steve. Good stuff. Good luck getting the conspiracy kooks on this board to ever consider the fact that the Parkland doctors' observations confirm a single gunman.
-
Extremely detailed testimony: https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/17289/dr-charles-j-jim-carrico-oral-history?ctx=30c8eb6c22dd7f434cc4b7ab1d66bba80fa97998&idx=525
Thumb1:
Thanks Steve.
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGGbCC3y/Dr-Charles-J-Jim-Carrico-JFK-head-wound.png)
JohnM
-
To all who thanked me for posting this, you're very welcome.
I'm glad to see that it interested you enough to respond, and give the interview a listen.
At the same time, I'm saddened to watch the interview fade away into oblivion with only 183 views.
This is one of the few doctors who were the first to see President Kennedy as he entered the hospital, and gives an account.
Dr. Carrico's observations are extremely important.
-
I'm saddened to watch the interview fade away into oblivion with only 183 views.
Let's see if we can get the interview more views. ;)
-
I didn't reply to the OP because I didn't really have anything to add but it is still appreciated.
-
I watched the entire video...
Carrico is definitely a pro-government guy, as he admits in the video while saying he backs Posner and dislikes Lifton...
He is definitely lying about the location of the exit wound on the head...
If you listen carefully Carrico describes the Occipital exit wound by words while locating it at the Parietal by gesture...
-
I watched the entire video...
Carrico is definitely a pro-government guy, as he admits in the video while saying he backs Posner and dislikes Lifton...
He is definitely lying about the location of the exit wound on the head...
If you listen carefully Carrico describes the Occipital exit wound by words while locating it at the Parietal by gesture...
You have to know that most, if not all of us, find Carrico far more credible than any nonsense you have ever posted.
-
Go back and listen...
Carrico describes the wound he saw as definitely being avulsive...
An out-shooting exit wound...
-
So here we have a prime example of a witness who completely changes his story decades later, yet WC apologists gobble up his new story because it supports their theory of the shooting, i.e., the lone-gunman theory.
When Carrico was interviewed by Harold Weisberg in the late 1960s, he insisted the throat wound was above the collar, just as he told the WC in 1964. He also told Weisberg that he saw no nick in the tie nor slits in the shirt before the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing.
In his 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital report, which he wrote just hours after seeing JFK's wounds, Carrico said that there was blood oozing from the cerebellum, and that there was a "penetrating" wound in the throat (Parkland Memorial Hospital Admission Note, Dr. James Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2; CE 392, pp. 4-5).
In his 11/23/63 summary report, Dr. Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, reported that Dr. Carrico noted a wound "in the occipital region of the skull" (CE 392, p. 2).
When Carrico testified before the WC four months later, in March 1964, he once again put the wound in the back of the head and also said there was shredded brain tissue in the back of the head:
There was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium [skull cap] or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue, present, and initially considerable slow oozing. (3 H 361)
When Carrico was interviewed by the HSCA in 1978, he once again put the wound in the back of the head, saying the large head wound was "in the right side of the . . . parietal-occipital area" and that he could see "both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound" (7 HSCA 268). As most here know, he could not have seen cerebellar fragments in the wound if the wound did not include a substantial part of the right side of the occiput.
Carrico's repeated statements about JFK's wounds discredit the autopsy brain photos, since they show the cerebellum intact, and also discredit the back-of-head autopsy photos, since they show no large head wound that included any part of the occiput. I should add that Carrico's initial descriptions of the large head wound closely match those given by most of the other Parkland doctors, by the two FBI agents at the autopsy, by the two Secret Service agents who observed the body in the morgue right after the autopsy, by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the head wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, and by the three morticians at the autopsy.
But, over 30 years later, in his interview with the Sixth Floor Museum, Carrico uses his right hand to place the large head wound even farther forward than the WC or the HSCA placed it, and you guys just gobble it up. You don't care that he said nothing about his initial description of the wound, given hours after he saw it and repeated by Dr. Clark in his report written the next day, or that he said nothing about the description of the wound that he gave to the WC, or that he said nothing about the description of the wound that he gave to the HSCA. You also don't care that he said nothing about seeing damaged cerebellar tissue in his 11/22/63 admission note, in his March 1964 WC testimony, and in his HSCA interview.
"Nah, never mind all that," right?
-
So here we have a prime example of a witness who completely changes his story decades later, yet WC apologists gobble up his new story because it supports their theory of the shooting, i.e., the lone-gunman theory.
When Carrico was interviewed by Harold Weisberg in the late 1960s, he insisted the throat wound was above the collar, just as he told the WC in 1964. He also told Weisberg that he saw no nick in the tie nor slits in the shirt before the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing.
In his 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital report, which he wrote just hours after seeing JFK's wounds, Carrico said that there was blood oozing from the cerebellum, and that there was a "penetrating" wound in the throat (Parkland Memorial Hospital Admission Note, Dr. James Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2; CE 392, pp. 4-5).
In his 11/23/63 summary report, Dr. Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, reported that Dr. Carrico noted a wound "in the occipital region of the skull" (CE 392, p. 2).
When Carrico testified before the WC four months later, in March 1964, he once again put the wound in the back of the head and also said there was shredded brain tissue in the back of the head:
There was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium [skull cap] or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue, present, and initially considerable slow oozing. (3 H 361)
When Carrico was interviewed by the HSCA in 1978, he once again put the wound in the back of the head, saying the large head wound was "in the right side of the . . . parietal-occipital area" and that he could see "both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound" (7 HSCA 268). As most here know, he could not have seen cerebellar fragments in the wound if the wound did not include a substantial part of the right side of the occiput.
Carrico's repeated statements about JFK's wounds discredit the autopsy brain photos, since they show the cerebellum intact, and also discredit the back-of-head autopsy photos, since they show no large head wound that included any part of the occiput. I should add that Carrico's initial descriptions of the large head wound closely match those given by most of the other Parkland doctors, by the two FBI agents at the autopsy, by the two Secret Service agents who observed the body in the morgue right after the autopsy, by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the head wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, and by the three morticians at the autopsy.
But, over 30 years later, in his interview with the Sixth Floor Museum, Carrico uses his right hand to place the large head wound even farther forward than the WC or the HSCA placed it, and you guys just gobble it up. You don't care that he said nothing about his initial description of the wound, given hours after he saw it and repeated by Dr. Clark in his report written the next day, or that he said nothing about the description of the wound that he gave to the WC, or that he said nothing about the description of the wound that he gave to the HSCA. You also don't care that he said nothing about seeing damaged cerebellar tissue in his 11/22/63 admission note, in his March 1964 WC testimony, and in his HSCA interview.
"Nah, never mind all that," right?
Carrico's description of the head wound is consistent with what he told the WC:
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?
Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.
Specifically, he located the wound in the "right occipitoparietal area" just as he described in the video.
-
All of you criticizing Carrico's location of the exit hole on the head.
Why do you ignore the words of Mrs. Kennedy during her graphic description of its location 7 days after the assassination to Theodore White when he interviewed her? Why do you do this? Explain this please, Griffith and Doyle.
-
Let's see if we can get the interview more views. ;)
Thanks much, Duncan! Thumb1:
-
Here's is Mrs. Kennedy's description (11/29/63) as reported by Theodore White:
"They were gunning the motorcycles. There were these little backfires. There was one noise like that. I thought it was a backfire..."
"Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying "no, no, no, no, no," with his fist beating. Then Jack turned and I turned. All I remember was a blue-gray building up ahead. Then Jack turned back so neatly, his last expression was so neat... you know that wonderful expression he had when they'd ask him a question about one of the ten million pieces they have in a rocket, just before he'd answer."
"He looked puzzled, then he slumped forward. He was holding out his hand ... I could see a piece of his skull coming off. It was flesh-colored, not white - he was holding out his hand ... I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head. Then he slumped in my lap, his blood and his brains were in my lap ... Then Clint Hill [the Secret Service man], he loved us, he made my life so easy, he was the first man in the car ... We all lay down in the car ... And I kept saying, Jack, Jack, Jack, and someone was yelling "he's dead, he's dead." All the ride to the hospital I kept bending over him, saying "Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack."
"His head was so beautiful. I tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in... but I knew he was dead."
-
MTG deftly describes a classic witness who told the truth about the rear exit wound and was then gotten to...
Something seen many times in the Assassination...
-
Here's is Mrs. Kennedy's description (11/29/63) as reported by Theodore White:
"They were gunning the motorcycles. There were these little backfires. There was one noise like that. I thought it was a backfire..."
"Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arms and saying "no, no, no, no, no," with his fist beating. Then Jack turned and I turned. All I remember was a blue-gray building up ahead. Then Jack turned back so neatly, his last expression was so neat... you know that wonderful expression he had when they'd ask him a question about one of the ten million pieces they have in a rocket, just before he'd answer."
"He looked puzzled, then he slumped forward. He was holding out his hand ... I could see a piece of his skull coming off. It was flesh-colored, not white - he was holding out his hand ... I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head. Then he slumped in my lap, his blood and his brains were in my lap ... Then Clint Hill [the Secret Service man], he loved us, he made my life so easy, he was the first man in the car ... We all lay down in the car ... And I kept saying, Jack, Jack, Jack, and someone was yelling "he's dead, he's dead." All the ride to the hospital I kept bending over him, saying "Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack."
"His head was so beautiful. I tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in... but I knew he was dead."
Hi Steve, It looks like you found an edited version. I downloaded the entire piece years ago, and its no longer available online (that I can find, anyway):
(https://i.ibb.co/twcz7Vn4/Mrs-JFK-and-T-White-pg-1.png)
(http://)(https://i.ibb.co/jP8PbL68/Mrs-JFK-and-T-White-pg-2.png)
-
MTG deftly describes a classic witness who told the truth about the rear exit wound and was then gotten to...
Something seen many times in the Assassination...
Obviously, Griffith is either ignoring or isn't aware of Mrs. Kennedy's description of where the the head wound was, which is the top of the head, not the rear-which, by the way, we can CLEARLY see flying through the air in the Zaparuder, Nix and Muchmore films, at an angle toward the southwest-not to mention the fact that the skull fragments, ( i.e. Burros, Harper and Weitzman) from the top of the head that we see in the films, were found southwest of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot.
-
Dr Salyer was the third person in the room and became a pioneer in craniofacial surgery.
-
Obviously, Griffith is either ignoring or isn't aware of Mrs. Kennedy's description of where the the head wound was, which is the top of the head, not the rear-which, by the way, we can CLEARLY see flying through the air in the Zaparuder, Nix and Muchmore films, at an angle toward the southwest-not to mention the fact that the skull fragments, ( i.e. Burros, Harper and Weitzman) from the top of the head that we see in the films, were found southwest of where the limousine was located at the time of the fatal shot.
So what about Embalmer Robinson's description of stretching a piece of plastic across the HOLE in the BACK of JFK's head immediately following the autopsy?
Also, Jackie does Not mention the struggle involving the SS taking possession of the Ceremonial Casket as it was being wheeled out of Parkland Hospital. IF the JFK Body was going to be removed from the ceremonial casket, THIS would have been the best time to do that.
-
So what about Embalmer Robinson's description of stretching a piece of plastic across the HOLE in the BACK of JFK's head immediately following the autopsy?
Also, Jackie does Not mention the struggle involving the SS taking possession of the Ceremonial Casket as it was being wheeled out of Parkland Hospital. IF the JFK Body was going to be removed from the ceremonial casket, THIS would have been the best time to do that.
When someone can explain the fact that the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films all show the same thing-the top of John Kennedy's head flying through the air, and then these same fragments are later recovered having landed more than 25 feet away in the grass and in the street (near the gutter)-not to mention the fragment that flies past Mrs. Kennedy's face, hits Mrs. Connally's seat, bounces off and is captured on film falling towards the floor of the limousine, where it was later picked up by Sam Kinney and turned over to Washington-yet still believe that there was a massive hole in the back of the skull-in spite of all the evidence that points to the top of the head being the part of the head that was shot off-I'm all ears.
The problem for everyone who believes that back of the head was where the exit wound was is that you cannot, based on the evidence. You cannot deny the fragments of skull, that mass amounts of blood and head matter that was was all over the interior of the car from the back seat to the hood of the car (as testified to by FBI agent Robert Frazier, who combed through every inch of the limousine) the governor and Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy. There is absolutely record of any skull fragments being found except for those ahead of the car which I already mentioned, and inside the car. The matter that struck Bobby Hargis and B.J. Martin can clearly be seens in the Zapruder film as a cloud of what Hargis described as "blood and brain and bloody water", and Hargis and Martin drove into it, just as Bobby Hargis said.
-
Robinson detailed that he had to lift Kennedy by the back of his head and when he did he felt the Occipital exit wound with his hand even though it was wrapped up in bandages...
-
MTG deftly describes a classic witness who told the truth about the rear exit wound and was then gotten to...
Something seen many times in the Assassination...
MTG lies. Carrico NEVER described a rear exit wound.
MTG's claim:
"When Carrico testified before the WC four months later, in March 1964, he once again put the wound in the back of the head and also said there was shredded brain tissue in the back of the head:"
What Carrico testified to the WC:
"The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura."
This is exactly where he is locating the wound with his hand in this picture:
(https://i.postimg.cc/kGGbCC3y/Dr-Charles-J-Jim-Carrico-JFK-head-wound.png)
The definition of occipitoparietal area:
The occipitoparietal region is defined by the parieto-occipital sulcus, a deep groove that separates the parietal lobe’s precuneus from the occipital lobe’s cuneus. While a small portion of this sulcus is visible on the lateral surface of the cerebral hemisphere, its main part lies on the medial surface, running downward and forward to join the calcarine fissure. This places the region at the posterior and superior part of the brain, behind the central sulcus and above the lateral sulcus
-
You can't get Cerebellum from that wound...
Carrico said the wound was out-shooting and avulsive...
According to gunshot forensics the plug of gore photographed at Parkland in the back seat represents a gunshot pattern originating from the Occiput and not the Parietal shown by Carrico...If indeed there was an exit wound where Carrico shows it then the gore would be out to Kennedy's right...One look at the back seat at Parkland and there is the plug of gore right in line with an Occipital exit...Not to mention the top of the seat that clearly shows a gunshot splatter pattern in the irrefutable direction of an Occipital exit wound...The splatter on the top of the seat upholstery is well to Jackie's side and evidences a wound that could not have occurred where Carrico puts it...
-
When someone can explain the fact that the Zapruder, Nix and Muchmore films all show the same thing-the top of John Kennedy's head flying through the air, and then these same fragments are later recovered having landed more than 25 feet away in the grass and in the street (near the gutter)-not to mention the fragment that flies past Mrs. Kennedy's face, hits Mrs. Connally's seat, bounces off and is captured on film falling towards the floor of the limousine, where it was later picked up by Sam Kinney and turned over to Washington-yet still believe that there was a massive hole in the back of the skull-in spite of all the evidence that points to the top of the head being the part of the head that was shot off-I'm all ears.
The problem for everyone who believes that back of the head was where the exit wound was is that you cannot, based on the evidence. You cannot deny the fragments of skull, that mass amounts of blood and head matter that was was all over the interior of the car from the back seat to the hood of the car (as testified to by FBI agent Robert Frazier, who combed through every inch of the limousine) the governor and Mrs. Connally and Mrs. Kennedy. There is absolutely record of any skull fragments being found except for those ahead of the car which I already mentioned, and inside the car. The matter that struck Bobby Hargis and B.J. Martin can clearly be seens in the Zapruder film as a cloud of what Hargis described as "blood and brain and bloody water", and Hargis and Martin drove into it, just as Bobby Hargis said.
I have found film footage showing a suited man carrying that Scrub Bucket sitting on the ground alongside the JFK Limo into Parkland Hospital. For decades we had been told that bucket came out of the JFK Limo trunk. That this bucket contained tools and nuts-n-bolts for the JFK Limo Top. That Urban Legend has now been put asunder. That Scrub Bucket was used on the interior of the JFK Limo. It came out of Parkland Hospital, and after being used, it was carried back inside Parkland Hospital. The interior of the JFK Limo was an altered crime scene only minutes after the Kill Shot.
-
Royell is switching the subject...
The photo of the limousine back seat at Parkland shows a clear blood splatter pattern to the back and left equal to the rear exiting shot through the Occipital...
-
You can't get Cerebellum from that wound...
Carrico said the wound was out-shooting and avulsive...
According to gunshot forensics the plug of gore photographed at Parkland in the back seat represents a gunshot pattern originating from the Occiput and not the Parietal shown by Carrico...If indeed there was an exit wound where Carrico shows it then the gore would be out to Kennedy's right...One look at the back seat at Parkland and there is the plug of gore right in line with an Occipital exit...Not to mention the top of the seat that clearly shows a gunshot splatter pattern in the irrefutable direction of an Occipital exit wound...The splatter on the top of the seat upholstery is well to Jackie's side and evidences a wound that could not have occurred where Carrico puts it...
It's always amusing when CTs try to play doctor.
-
Royell is switching the subject...
The photo of the limousine back seat at Parkland shows a clear blood splatter pattern to the back and left equal to the rear exiting shot through the Occipital...
So now you're a blood splatter expert (Yes, that is a real thing)
https://legalcareerpath.com/blood-spatter-analyst/
-
Royell is switching the subject...
The photo of the limousine back seat at Parkland shows a clear blood splatter pattern to the back and left equal to the rear exiting shot through the Occipital...
As are you, Brian. President Kennedy was already leaning "noticeably to his left" just before the fatal shot. The Marie Muchmore film, Mary Ann Moorman Krahmer Polaroid photo also shows this.
And why do you ignore everything I posted regarding the skull fragments and the 4 witnesses who found them, plus the fact that three films show the direction of the skull fragments once they left the skull.
There were no skull fragments discovered anywhere to the rear of the car-all were found to the front of the car, and as much as 25 feet away from the car. You ignore this. Why?
-
If you go to Google Images and enter "JFK Limousine Parkland" you will see the image of the rear limo seat at Parkland...
Pay attention to the upper part of the seat backrest and you will see a blood splatter direction for the gore from the head that evidences a rear-exiting tangential shot from the Occipital...
-
If you go to Google Images and enter "JFK Limousine Parkland" you will see the image of the rear limo seat at Parkland...
Pay attention to the upper part of the seat backrest and you will see a blood splatter direction for the gore from the head that evidences a rear-exiting tangential shot from the Occipital...
Sorry Brian. I've had copies of these limousine interior photos for years, and very sharp ones that that. Not buying it. Where's the damage to the limousine from a bullet that would have exited and put a hole in the back seat and/or caused damage to the limousine seat compartment? There is none. There was no such thing as a fragment from the occipital bone in Kennedy's head. All bone fragments recovered came from the top of the head. Period.
-
Sorry Brian. I've had copies of these limousine interior for years. Not buying it. Where's the damage to the limousine from a bullet that would have exited and put a hole in the back seat and/or caused damage to the limousine seat compartment? There is none. There was no such thing as a fragment from the occipital bone in Kennedy's head. All bone fragments recovered came from the top of the head. Period.
It is my understanding that the wound in the back of JFK's Head was an Avulsion Wound. The shape of a volcano. This type of wound would Not produce large pieces of skull being blown out of the back of the head.
-
It is my understanding that the wound in the back of JFK's Head was an Avulsion Wound. The shape of a volcano. This type of wound would Not produce large pieces of skull being blown out of the back of the head.
Thank you for that amateurish analysis.
-
So here we have a prime example of a witness who completely changes his story decades later, yet WC apologists gobble up his new story because it supports their theory of the shooting, i.e., the lone-gunman theory.
When Carrico was interviewed by Harold Weisberg in the late 1960s, he insisted the throat wound was above the collar, just as he told the WC in 1964. He also told Weisberg that he saw no nick in the tie nor slits in the shirt before the nurses began cutting away JFK's clothing.
In his 11/22/63 Parkland Hospital report, which he wrote just hours after seeing JFK's wounds, Carrico said that there was blood oozing from the cerebellum, and that there was a "penetrating" wound in the throat (Parkland Memorial Hospital Admission Note, Dr. James Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2; CE 392, pp. 4-5).
In his 11/23/63 summary report, Dr. Kemp Clark, the head of neurosurgery at Parkland, reported that Dr. Carrico noted a wound "in the occipital region of the skull" (CE 392, p. 2).
When Carrico testified before the WC four months later, in March 1964, he once again put the wound in the back of the head and also said there was shredded brain tissue in the back of the head:
There was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium [skull cap] or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue, present, and initially considerable slow oozing. (3 H 361)
When Carrico was interviewed by the HSCA in 1978, he once again put the wound in the back of the head, saying the large head wound was "in the right side of the . . . parietal-occipital area" and that he could see "both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound" (7 HSCA 268). As most here know, he could not have seen cerebellar fragments in the wound if the wound did not include a substantial part of the right side of the occiput.
Carrico's repeated statements about JFK's wounds discredit the autopsy brain photos, since they show the cerebellum intact, and also discredit the back-of-head autopsy photos, since they show no large head wound that included any part of the occiput. I should add that Carrico's initial descriptions of the large head wound closely match those given by most of the other Parkland doctors, by the two FBI agents at the autopsy, by the two Secret Service agents who observed the body in the morgue right after the autopsy, by the Parkland nurses who cleaned the head wound and packed it with gauze to prepare the body for the casket, and by the three morticians at the autopsy.
But, over 30 years later, in his interview with the Sixth Floor Museum, Carrico uses his right hand to place the large head wound even farther forward than the WC or the HSCA placed it, and you guys just gobble it up. You don't care that he said nothing about his initial description of the wound, given hours after he saw it and repeated by Dr. Clark in his report written the next day, or that he said nothing about the description of the wound that he gave to the WC, or that he said nothing about the description of the wound that he gave to the HSCA. You also don't care that he said nothing about seeing damaged cerebellar tissue in his 11/22/63 admission note, in his March 1964 WC testimony, and in his HSCA interview.
"Nah, never mind all that," right?
To follow up on the correctness of Dr. Carrico's first descriptions of the large head wound as being in the right-rear area of the skull (i.e., in the right parietal-occipital region), I should add that optical-density measurements have established that one of the JFK autopsy skull x-rays (the AP x-ray) indicates missing occipital bone.
When the forgers altered the autopsy skull x-rays, they concealed the missing occipital bone from observation by the naked eye, but they could not and did not anticipate the development of the science of optical-density (OD) measurement and the onset of advanced densitometers that could perform incredibly precise OD measurements.
Dr. David Mantik was prompted to review his existing OD measurements of the back of the skull and to take more OD measurements of that area when he became aware of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell's wound diagram that shows much of the lambdoid suture missing. Dr. Mantik knew that any sizable amount of missing lambdoid suture meant there had to be missing occipital bone. Dr. Mantik found clear evidence from the OD measurements that the AP x-ray indicates missing occipital bone (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 269-272).
For the sake of reference, the occipital bone, aka the occiput, is the bone that constitutes most of the back of the skull. It is centered between the rear part of the right and left parietal bones, and it includes the bump on the back of the skull (the external occipital protuberance). The autopsy pathologists stated in the autopsy report that the large head wound extended slightly into the occiput. The HSCA FPP portrayed the large head wound as not including any part of the occiput.
We should keep in mind that Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, informed the HSCA that a large skull fragment that arrived from Dallas during the autopsy was occipital bone. We should also remember that Dr. Boswell insisted to the HSCA and the ARRB that about half of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the skull fragments that arrived from Dallas. Since the rear head entry wound was only 1 cm above the external occipital protuberance (EOP), the skull fragment that contained half of the wound could only have been occipital bone.
Yet, the autopsy photos of the head show no missing occipital bone and no exposure of cerebellar tissue, not to mention that the autopsy brain photos show an intact cerebellum and also show no damage whatsoever to the rear part of the right and left occipital lobes (the part of the brain directly above the cerebellum).
Another point to keep in mind is that the cerebellum is located only behind the lower part of the occiput. No one could have seen damage to cerebellar issue, i.e., damage to the cerebellum, much less blood and fluid oozing from the cerebellum, unless part of the occipital bone was missing. Otherwise, the damage simply would not have been visible.
This, of course, brings us to the fact that you cannot accept the autopsy report's placement of the rear head entry wound if you believe the autopsy brain photos are authentic, since they show an intact cerebellum and no damage to the rear area of the right and left occipital lobes. But, if you accept the cowlick entry site, a whopping 4 inches above the EOP site, you must explain the fact that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex exactly in the location of the cowlick site, as noted by neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley and as confirmed by WC defender Dr. Robert Artwohl when he viewed the autopsy materials at the National Archives (Dr. Mantik later confirmed this at the National Archives as well).
Finally, one has to wonder just what Dr. Carrico had read about the JFK case by the time of his interview for him to make the baffling statement that he had not seen any validated evidence that refuted the WC's conclusions. Good grief. Carrico did the interview in 1997, years after many thorough refutations of the WC's lone-gunman theory had been published, and years after the HSCA had determined that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Apparently Carrico had not read such careful and superb scholarly works as Henry Hurt's book Reasonable Doubt, Dr. David Scheim's book Contract on America, Harold Weisberg's book Post Mortem, Anthony Summers' book Conspiracy, G. Robert Blakey's book Fatal Hour, or Howard Roffman's book Presumed Guilty, among others, all published before 1997.
-
To follow up on the correctness of Dr. Carrico's first descriptions of the large head wound as being in the right-rear area of the skull (i.e., in the right parietal-occipital region), I should add that optical-density measurements have established that one of the JFK autopsy skull x-rays (the AP x-ray) indicates missing occipital bone.
This is where your ignorance is put on full display. The occipitoparietal area Carrico spoke of. It is at the juncture of the parietal and occipital lobes of the brain, aka parieto-occipital sulcus, which is at the upper rear of the cranial vault. I'm not pretending to be any sort of medical expert but this is something that can be determined through a google search. If I really were a medical expert, I wouldn't have had to look it up. Perhaps MTG should have done the same before he posted.
Carrico's placement of the defect in the skull is consistent with the autopsy report which indicated the defect in the skull was chiefly parietal but extending into the occipital and temporal regions.
When the forgers altered the autopsy skull x-rays, they concealed the missing occipital bone from observation by the naked eye, but they could not and did not anticipate the development of the science of optical-density (OD) measurement and the onset of advanced densitometers that could perform incredibly precise OD measurements.
This is where MTG ventures into Fantasyland. There was no forgery of the x-rays. How does one forge an x-ray?
Dr. David Mantik was prompted to review his existing OD measurements of the back of the skull and to take more OD measurements of that area when he became aware of Dr. J. Thornton Boswell's wound diagram that shows much of the lambdoid suture missing. Dr. Mantik knew that any sizable amount of missing lambdoid suture meant there had to be missing occipital bone. Dr. Mantik found clear evidence from the OD measurements that the AP x-ray indicates missing occipital bone (The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis, 2024, pp. 269-272).
MTG loves to cite doctors outside their area of expertise. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. He's treats cancer patients.
For the sake of reference, the occipital bone, aka the occiput, is the bone that constitutes most of the back of the skull. It is centered between the rear part of the right and left parietal bones, and it includes the bump on the back of the skull (the external occipital protuberance). The autopsy pathologists stated in the autopsy report that the large head wound extended slightly into the occiput. The HSCA FPP portrayed the large head wound as not including any part of the occiput.
We should keep in mind that Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, informed the HSCA that a large skull fragment that arrived from Dallas during the autopsy was occipital bone. We should also remember that Dr. Boswell insisted to the HSCA and the ARRB that about half of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the skull fragments that arrived from Dallas. Since the rear head entry wound was only 1 cm above the external occipital protuberance (EOP), the skull fragment that contained half of the wound could only have been occipital bone.
Yes, the defect did extend into the occipital bone as well as the temporal bone but was chiefly parietal. That means it extended all long the upper right side of JFK's head. The Z-film shows a flap of skull hanging down from the upper right side of JFK's head after the head shot. MTG likes to ignore the references to the parietal and temporal regions and pretend the defect was entirely in the occipital region. The reality, only the rear tip of the defect was in the occipital area.
Yet, the autopsy photos of the head show no missing occipital bone and no exposure of cerebellar tissue, not to mention that the autopsy brain photos show an intact cerebellum and also show no damage whatsoever to the rear part of the right and left occipital lobes (the part of the brain directly above the cerebellum).
The photo shows the scalp which is being pulled up by one of the prosectors over the defect. 12 members of the FPP got to see ALL the photos and x-rays from the autopsy and agreed JFK was shot in the back of the head. Why would rational person ignore that and believe MTG?
Another point to keep in mind is that the cerebellum is located only behind the lower part of the occiput. No one could have seen damage to cerebellar issue, i.e., damage to the cerebellum, much less blood and fluid oozing from the cerebellum, unless part of the occipital bone was missing. Otherwise, the damage simply would not have been visible.
Thank you for that opinion Dr. Griffith. Give your vast knowledge of forensic medicine, it is a wonder you were not invited to join the FPP.
This, of course, brings us to the fact that you cannot accept the autopsy report's placement of the rear head entry wound if you believe the autopsy brain photos are authentic, since they show an intact cerebellum and no damage to the rear area of the right and left occipital lobes. But, if you accept the cowlick entry site, a whopping 4 inches above the EOP site, you must explain the fact that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex exactly in the location of the cowlick site, as noted by neuroanatomist Dr. Joseph Riley and as confirmed by WC defender Dr. Robert Artwohl when he viewed the autopsy materials at the National Archives (Dr. Mantik later confirmed this at the National Archives as well).
Call me crazy, but I'll go with the unanimous conclusion of the FPP over yours. They got to see all the photos and x-rays from the autopsy and they had a wee bit more experience than you do in the field of forensic medicine.
Finally, one has to wonder just what Dr. Carrico had read about the JFK case by the time of his interview for him to make the baffling statement that he had not seen any validated evidence that refuted the WC's conclusions. Good grief. Carrico did the interview in 1997, years after many thorough refutations of the WC's lone-gunman theory had been published, and years after the HSCA had determined that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. Apparently Carrico had not read such careful and superb scholarly works as Henry Hurt's book Reasonable Doubt, Dr. David Scheim's book Contract on America, Harold Weisberg's book Post Mortem, Anthony Summers' book Conspiracy, G. Robert Blakey's book Fatal Hour, or Howard Roffman's book Presumed Guilty, among others, all published before 1997.
Maybe it's you who has been influenced by reading so much nonsense over the years. I take that back. There is no maybe about that.
-
This is where your ignorance is put on full display. The occipitoparietal area Carrico spoke of. It is at the juncture of the parietal and occipital lobes of the brain, aka parieto-occipital sulcus, which is at the upper rear of the cranial vault. I'm not pretending to be any sort of medical expert but this is something that can be determined through a google search. If I really were a medical expert, I wouldn't have had to look it up. Perhaps MTG should have done the same before he posted.
Carrico's placement of the defect in the skull is consistent with the autopsy report which indicated the defect in the skull was chiefly parietal but extending into the occipital and temporal regions.
This is where MTG ventures into Fantasyland. There was no forgery of the x-rays. How does one forge an x-ray?
MTG loves to cite doctors outside their area of expertise. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. He's treats cancer patients.
Yes, the defect did extend into the occipital bone as well as the temporal bone but was chiefly parietal. That means it extended all long the upper right side of JFK's head. The Z-film shows a flap of skull hanging down from the upper right side of JFK's head after the head shot. MTG likes to ignore the references to the parietal and temporal regions and pretend the defect was entirely in the occipital region. The reality, only the rear tip of the defect was in the occipital area.
Thank you for that opinion Dr. Griffith. Give your vast knowledge of forensic medicine, it is a wonder you were not invited to join the FPP.
Call me crazy, but I'll go with the unanimous conclusion of the FPP over yours. They got to see all the photos and x-rays from the autopsy and they had a wee bit more experience than you do in the field of forensic medicine.
Maybe it's you who has been influenced by reading so much nonsense over the years. I take that back. There is no maybe about that.
You surely do love to hear yourself talk and read what you write, Michael G. Bad thing, though. It's all rubbish when it come to the head wound President Kennedy suffered.
-
As are you, Brian. President Kennedy was already leaning "noticeably to his left" just before the fatal shot.
No, that doesn't fly...In the photo I referenced, of the limousine back seat at Parkland, you can see the out-shoot, blood splatter on the top of the seat cushion is rearward at an angle that fits the Occipital would perfectly...If Carrico's lie that the side of the head was avulsed were true then the out-shoot would be roughly to the right side of the limo towards the Knoll...But we don't see that in the photo I referenced...Instead we see the gore from the plug of brain, skull, and scalp from the ejected Occipital material landing right where it would have in the back seat as well as the blood splatter at an angle that forensically indicates a shot from the front...
-
No, that doesn't fly...In the photo I referenced, of the limousine back seat at Parkland, you can see the out-shoot, blood splatter on the top of the seat cushion is rearward at an angle that fits the Occipital would perfectly...If Carrico's lie that the side of the head was avulsed were true then the out-shoot would be roughly to the right side of the limo towards the Knoll...But we don't see that in the photo I referenced...Instead we see the gore from the plug of brain, skull, and scalp from the ejected Occipital material landing right where it would have in the back seat as well as the blood splatter at an angle that forensically indicates a shot from the front...
It does fly. A) Look at the Zapruder film. B) Look at the autopsy photos (or are these "fake" as your party says) C. Use common sense. Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that any blood or brain tissue that would landed on the back rest of the back seat would have been immediately severely disturbed when Mrs. Kennedy raised out of the seat and attempted to climb from seat onto the trunk. LOOK AT Mrs. Kennedy's POSITION AGAINST THE BACK SEAT Brian. Are going to deny that Mrs. Kennedy's hips and lower body are right up against the seat in the very location your "blood splatter" is on the seat? Come on! Your entire theory is ludicrous and ridiculous.
-
It does fly. A) Look at the Zapruder film. B) Look at the autopsy photos (or are these "fake" as your party says) C. Use common sense. Perhaps you have overlooked the fact that any blood or brain tissue that would landed on the back rest of the back seat would have been immediately severely disturbed when Mrs. Kennedy raised out of the seat and attempted to climb from seat onto the trunk. LOOK AT Mrs. Kennedy's POSITION AGAINST THE BACK SEAT Brian. Are going to deny that Mrs. Kennedy's hips and lower body are right up against the seat in the very location your "blood splatter" is on the seat? Come on! Your entire theory is ludicrous and ridiculous.
You're not answering what was written...
The Blood Splatter is exactly where it would be if there was a shot from the front and Occipital exit wound...
There is zero where Carrico's wound needs it to be...
That's why they do blood splatter analysis because it is forensically accurate...
Pitzer proved there was a covert pre-autopsy to alter the wounds...
-
This is where your ignorance is put on full display. The occipitoparietal area Carrico spoke of. It is at the juncture of the parietal and occipital lobes of the brain, aka parieto-occipital sulcus, which is at the upper rear of the cranial vault. I'm not pretending to be any sort of medical expert but this is something that can be determined through a google search. If I really were a medical expert, I wouldn't have had to look it up. Perhaps MTG should have done the same before he posted.
Carrico's placement of the defect in the skull is consistent with the autopsy report which indicated the defect in the skull was chiefly parietal but extending into the occipital and temporal regions.
This is where MTG ventures into Fantasyland. There was no forgery of the x-rays. How does one forge an x-ray?
MTG loves to cite doctors outside their area of expertise. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. He's treats cancer patients.
Yes, the defect did extend into the occipital bone as well as the temporal bone but was chiefly parietal. That means it extended all long the upper right side of JFK's head. The Z-film shows a flap of skull hanging down from the upper right side of JFK's head after the head shot. MTG likes to ignore the references to the parietal and temporal regions and pretend the defect was entirely in the occipital region. The reality, only the rear tip of the defect was in the occipital area.
Thank you for that opinion Dr. Griffith. Give your vast knowledge of forensic medicine, it is a wonder you were not invited to join the FPP.
Call me crazy, but I'll go with the unanimous conclusion of the FPP over yours. They got to see all the photos and x-rays from the autopsy and they had a wee bit more experience than you do in the field of forensic medicine.
Maybe it's you who has been influenced by reading so much nonsense over the years. I take that back. There is no maybe about that.
Yeah, uh-huh. This is just another display of your pitiful knowledge of the evidence, and of your penchant for distortion, evasion, and omission. It is also another display of your embarrassing inability to correctly format your replies. I guess the simple push-button formatting commands are just too complicated for you to figure out.
Your entire answer for the historic hard scientific evidence of the OD measurements is to note that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, as if that somehow proves the OD measurements are invalid, when in fact it makes them all the more compelling because a big part of his job is making and correctly analyzing OD measurements. Plus, as I know you know, two other medical experts, Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. Gary Aguilar, did their own OD measurements, which confirmed Mantik's OD measurements.
I should add that all three of those medical experts have done a great deal of reading in forensic science literature, which is why their writings, especially Dr. Mantik's, contain many references to forensic sources. You'd know this if you'd bothered to read their research.
I notice you ignored the fact that Dr. Artwohl, a staunch WC defender, admitted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the exact spot of the cowlick site, just as Dr. Riley observed, and just as Dr. Mantik confirmed. Do you somehow not grasp that this debunks the cowlick site?
In response to the fact that Dr. Ebersole said a large late-arriving skull fragment was occipital bone, and to the fact that Dr. Boswell said part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments, you say "the defect did extend into the occipital bone," but then a few paragraphs later you once again dishonestly appeal to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP," even though the FPP denied that the wound extended into the occiput!
I've pointed out the contradictory, dishonest nature of your use of the FPP's findings on several occasions, but you continue to peddle your distortions.
Furthermore, you obviously do not understand that the occipital fragment that Dr. Boswell said contained part of the rear head entry wound would have had to come from the middle part of the occiput, since the wound was only 1 cm above the EOP. Humes and xxxx never, ever said the large head wound extended that far into the occiput, much less that a large amount of occipital bone was missing.
Boswell, however, to his great credit, did admit via his wound diagram for the ARRB that a sizable piece of occipital bone was missing, confirming Dr. Ebersole's disclosure to the HSCA that a large late-arriving fragment from Dallas was occipital bone.
Moreover, you keep refusing to face the fact that you cannot accept the EOP entry site, much less believe that the large head wound extended even slightly into the occiput, without repudiating the autopsy brain photos as utterly fraudulent. Do you just not have the education necessary to understand the implication of the fact that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and no damage to the right and left occipital lobes?
It is specious and dishonest of you to keep selectively appealing to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP" when the FPP themselves pointed out that the brain photos categorically make it impossible to accept the EOP entry site -- assuming, of course, that the brain photos are authentic.
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no bullet could have entered the EOP site without tearing through the right occipital lobe, just as the FPP correctly noted?
However, if you accept the EOP site, you must reject the brain photos as bogus and embrace the cowlick site. But, uh-oh, the autopsy photos refute the cowlick site because they show intact cerebral cortex exactly in the cowlick site's location.
Additionally, if the large head wound extended even slightly into the occipital bone from the right parietal bone, how in the world could the right occipital lobe have remained undamaged? Here, again, the FPP's conclusions wreak havoc with your position, since the FPP correctly noted that the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe (indeed, they cited this as another objection to the EOP site).
Are you really incapable of understanding the self-evident fact that if a bullet blasted even a tiny amount of skull from the top part of the occiput, this would have done significant damage to the right occipital lobe (and probably would have caused some damage to the left lobe as well), since the occipital lobe lies directly behind the top half of the occiput?
I see that you also punted on the fact that the only way anyone could have seen damage to the cerebellum, much less blood and fluid dripping from the cerebellum, would have been if occipital bone was missing in the area of the cerebellum, which is the lower half of the occiput.
You keep hiding behind the phony argument that no one who is not a doctor is qualified to make this point, yet you ignore the fact that many medical doctors have also made this point.
You don't have to hold medical agree to look at diagrams of the skull and of the brain and see where the cerebellum is located inside the skull. You can look in hundreds of online medical sources on anatomy and see that the cerebellum is located only at the lower half of the occipital bone and nowhere else.
If you just do a Google search, you'll learn the following:
The cerebellum sits directly beneath the occipital lobe at the lower back of the brain, and both structures are protected by the occipital bone of the skull (the occiput).
For your education, here are some medical diagrams of the occiput, the cerebellum, and the occipital lobe:
OCCIPUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_lateral2.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_-_animation_02.gif
CEREBELLUM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg
https://www.flintrehab.com/cerebellum-brain-damage/
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23418-cerebellum
OCCIPITAL LOBE
https://www.flintrehab.com/occipital-lobe-stroke/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg
https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/lobes-brain
And, just FYI (but more for the benefit of other readers), I've read many, many sources on forensic science and wound ballistics, as well as on anatomy and physiology. In contrast, it is obvious you know next to nothing about these subjects.
-
Yeah, uh-huh. This is just another display of your pitiful knowledge of the evidence, and of your penchant for distortion, evasion, and omission. It is also another display of your embarrassing inability to correctly format your replies. I guess the simple push-button formatting commands are just too complicated for you to figure out.
Stick it up your a**. You make your share of formatting errors and other typos, but I'm not anal enough to make an issue out of them. One thing I've learned over the years is that the people who try to score points over such trivialities do so because the substance of their arguments is so weak. That's certainly the case with you.
Your entire answer for the historic hard scientific evidence of the OD measurements is to note that Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, as if that somehow proves the OD measurements are invalid, when in fact it makes them all the more compelling because a big part of his job is making and correctly analyzing OD measurements. Plus, as I know you know, two other medical experts, Dr. Michael Chesser and Dr. Gary Aguilar, did their own OD measurements, which confirmed Mantik's OD measurements.
So now you cite an ophthalmologist and a neurologist to analyze the medical evidence. Why is it you can never cite competent forensic medical examiners to support your beliefs? Oh, that's right. They don't. The FPP was comprised of some of the leading medical examiners in the country and who were assisted by radiologist John Ebersole. The made completely different judgements about the medical evidence than the guys you cite, none of whom had ever performed a medico-legal autopsy.
Here's a clue for you, free of charge, because you obviously need one. Oncologists, neurologists, and ophthalmologists are not trained or experienced in forensic pathology. Why would you accept their judgements over those of the men who did have that training and experience?
I should add that all three of those medical experts have done a great deal of reading in forensic science literature, which is why their writings, especially Dr. Mantik's, contain many references to forensic sources. You'd know this if you'd bothered to read their research.
Fair enough. Tell us Mantik's qualifications in the area of forensic pathology. Tell us how many times he has testified as medical examiner in a murder trial. Would that number be > 0?
I notice you ignored the fact that Dr. Artwohl, a staunch WC defender, admitted that the autopsy photos show intact cerebral cortex in the exact spot of the cowlick site, just as Dr. Riley observed, and just as Dr. Mantik confirmed. Do you somehow not grasp that this debunks the cowlick site?
Do you think the FPP did not see that?
In response to the fact that Dr. Ebersole said a large late-arriving skull fragment was occipital bone, and to the fact that Dr. Boswell said part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments, you say "the defect did extend into the occipital bone," but then a few paragraphs later you once again dishonestly appeal to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP," even though the FPP denied that the wound extended into the occiput!
My two observations are not mutually exclusive.
I've pointed out the contradictory, dishonest nature of your use of the FPP's findings on several occasions, but you continue to peddle your distortions.
I guess I have more faith in the leading forensic medical examiners of their day than your collection of oncologists, ophthalmologists, and neurologists.
Furthermore, you obviously do not understand that the occipital fragment that Dr. Boswell said contained part of the rear head entry wound would have had to come from the middle part of the occiput, since the wound was only 1 cm above the EOP. Humes and xxxx never, ever said the large head wound extended that far into the occiput, much less that a large amount of occipital bone was missing.
Now you are inserting your own amateurish opinions. That's even less convincing than your oncologists, ophthalmologists, and neurologists.
Boswell, however, to his great credit, did admit via his wound diagram for the ARRB that a sizable piece of occipital bone was missing, confirming Dr. Ebersole's disclosure to the HSCA that a large late-arriving fragment from Dallas was occipital bone.
So? Nobody has ever disputed the defect in JFK's skull included part of the occipital bone. That was mentioned in the original autopsy.
Moreover, you keep refusing to face the fact that you cannot accept the EOP entry site, much less believe that the large head wound extended even slightly into the occiput, without repudiating the autopsy brain photos as utterly fraudulent. Do you just not have the education necessary to understand the implication of the fact that the brain photos show no damage to the cerebellum and no damage to the right and left occipital lobes?
I have never seen the autopsy photos and even if I had, like you, I am completely unqualified to analyze what they tell us. That's why, unlike you, I choose to defer to competent people to make those judgements.
It is specious and dishonest of you to keep selectively appealing to the "unanimous conclusion of the FPP" when the FPP themselves pointed out that the brain photos categorically make it impossible to accept the EOP entry site -- assuming, of course, that the brain photos are authentic.
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that no bullet could have entered the EOP site without tearing through the right occipital lobe, just as the FPP correctly noted?
There was a difference of opinion between Bethesda team and the FPP as to precisely where the bullet struck JFK. They both agreed he was shot in the back of the head which is what matters. That is consistent with what the body of evidence as a whole tells us which is that Oswald fired that shot from the sniper's nest. That conclusion works no matter which group correctly placed the entrance point in the back of the head.
However, if you accept the EOP site, you must reject the brain photos as bogus and embrace the cowlick site. But, uh-oh, the autopsy photos refute the cowlick site because they show intact cerebral cortex exactly in the cowlick site's location.
You don't get to tell me what I must or must not conclude. I just told you what I believe and it isn't based on my expertise in the field of forensic pathology because, like you, I have none.
Additionally, if the large head wound extended even slightly into the occipital bone from the right parietal bone, how in the world could the right occipital lobe have remained undamaged? Here, again, the FPP's conclusions wreak havoc with your position, since the FPP correctly noted that the brain photos show no damage to the right occipital lobe (indeed, they cited this as another objection to the EOP site).
It doesn't matter to me whether the Bethesda team or the FPP correctly placed the entrance wound. What matters to me is who fired that shot, and only one of those groups has to be correct for Oswald to be the shooter. If the FPP got it wrong, that doesn't exonerate Oswald. He was the assassin.
Are you really incapable of understanding the self-evident fact that if a bullet blasted even a tiny amount of skull from the top part of the occiput, this would have done significant damage to the right occipital lobe (and probably would have caused some damage to the left lobe as well), since the occipital lobe lies directly behind the top half of the occiput?
So? Explain to us how that would exonerate Oswald.
I see that you also punted on the fact that the only way anyone could have seen damage to the cerebellum, much less blood and fluid dripping from the cerebellum, would have been if occipital bone was missing in the area of the cerebellum, which is the lower half of the occiput.
I have never disputed that part of the occipital bone was blown out. What matter is that it was blown out by Oswald.
You keep hiding behind the phony argument that no one who is not a doctor is qualified to make this point, yet you ignore the fact that many medical doctors have also made this point.
Goody. Now tell us how any of that exonerates Oswald.
You don't have to hold medical agree to look at diagrams of the skull and of the brain and see where the cerebellum is located inside the skull. You can look in hundreds of online medical sources on anatomy and see that the cerebellum is located only at the lower half of the occipital bone and nowhere else.
No you don't and you don't need to be a doctor to figure out it was Oswald who fire the shot that killed JFK. Why has that obvious fact slipped past you?
If you just do a Google search, you'll learn the following:
The cerebellum sits directly beneath the occipital lobe at the lower back of the brain, and both structures are protected by the occipital bone of the skull (the occiput).
For your education, here are some medical diagrams of the occiput, the cerebellum, and the occipital lobe:
OCCIPUT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_lateral2.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone#/media/File:Occipital_bone_-_animation_02.gif
CEREBELLUM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg
https://www.flintrehab.com/cerebellum-brain-damage/
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23418-cerebellum
OCCIPITAL LOBE
https://www.flintrehab.com/occipital-lobe-stroke/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebellum#/media/File:Gehirn,_lateral_-_Lobi_+_Stammhirn_+_Cerebellum_eng.svg
https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain/brain-anatomy/lobes-brain
And, just FYI (but more for the benefit of other readers), I've read many, many sources on forensic science and wound ballistics, as well as on anatomy and physiology. In contrast, it is obvious you know next to nothing about these subjects.
Fascinating. Now tell us why any of that matters to the question of who shot JFK.
-
You're not answering what was written...
The Blood Splatter is exactly where it would be if there was a shot from the front and Occipital exit wound...
There is zero where Carrico's wound needs it to be...
That's why they do blood splatter analysis because it is forensically accurate...
Pitzer proved the was a covert pre-autopsy to alter the wounds...
I did address what you wrote with further proof of the total absurdity of your claim that the blood on the backrest of the back seat is "proof" of a frontal shot! That blood on the backseat had to have gotten onto that area while JFK was being removed from the car, due to what I pointed out to you regarding Mrs. Kennedy's lower body pressing against that portion of the seat, as seen in the Zapruder film.
You just don't like what I pointed out to you.
And as for the photo of the car's backset, it wasn't taken at Parkland. There are zero photos of the back seat of the car while at Parkland
The photos of the back seat were taken in Washington D.C. at the White House garage after the car was returned to Washington and before FBI agent Robert Frazier and a 2nd person sifted through and examined the entire limousine for evidence. It's all available in the testimony of Robert Frazier.
And as for your calling Dr. Carrico a liar for saying "the side of the head was avulsed", Carrico was correct!
What do you think that mass is above and to the front of JFK's ear, covering the temple and extending forward is? That is a portion of the side and top-side of JFK's head attached to scalp and hanging inside-out/upside down, which Mrs. Kennedy put back into place on the way to Parkland. Did you even read what I posted yesterday, that she told Theodore White? And upon her putting that huge piece of skull back up and into place, she distorted the view of the head wound, inadvertently. What Dr. Carrico saw is what the top of the head photos show after the skull had been put back into plaza by Mrs. Kennedy when they arrived at the hospital. Most people can see the avulsed area on the right top of the head wound, where the skull bone is clearly visible.
(http://)(https://i.ibb.co/j99JTSdz/JFK-TOP-OF-HEAD.png)
-
I stand corrected on the location of the limousine in the blood splatter photo...
You try to get away with ignoring Hargis who witnessed the strong gunshot splatter in the same rearward, Occipital direction evidenced by the splatter in the aforementioned photo...
Clint Hill also looked in to the tunnel-like wound that he said was in the back of the head until he adjusted his story just like Carrico did...Hill saw a plug of brain, skull, and flesh in the back seat, that had obviously dropped out of that gaping wound and fallen in the back seat...That plug of gore matched the rear-exiting blood splatter pattern...
The Bell Film caught some rear-exiting flesh...
-
I did address what you wrote with further proof of the total absurdity of your claim that the blood on the backrest of the back seat is "proof" of a frontal shot! That blood on the backseat had to have gotten onto that area while JFK was being removed from the car, due to what I pointed out to you regarding Mrs. Kennedy's lower body pressing against that portion of the seat, as seen in the Zapruder film.
You just don't like what I pointed out to you.
And as for the photo of the car's backset, it wasn't taken at Parkland. There are zero photos of the back seat of the car while at Parkland
The photos of the back seat were taken in Washington D.C. at the White House garage after the car was returned to Washington and before FBI agent Robert Frazier and a 2nd person sifted through and examined the entire limousine for evidence. It's all available in the testimony of Robert Frazier.
And as for your calling Dr. Carrico a liar for saying "the side of the head was avulsed", Carrico was correct!
What do you think that mass is above and to the front of JFK's ear, covering the temple and extending forward is? That is a portion of the side and top-side of JFK's head attached to scalp and hanging inside-out/upside down, which Mrs. Kennedy put back into place on the way to Parkland. Did you even read what I posted yesterday, that she told Theodore White? And upon her putting that huge piece of skull back up and into place, she distorted the view of the head wound, inadvertently. What Dr. Carrico saw is what the top of the head photos show after the skull had been put back into plaza by Mrs. Kennedy when they arrived at the hospital. Most people can see the avulsed area on the right top of the head wound, where the skull bone is clearly visible.
(http://)(https://i.ibb.co/j99JTSdz/JFK-TOP-OF-HEAD.png)
As you posted, Jackie said "TOP of his head". Not the "side" or the "upper side" or the "top side", but TOP. That Flap is not the TOP of the head.
-
I stand corrected on the location of the limousine in the blood splatter photo...
You try to get away with ignoring Hargis who witnessed the strong gunshot splatter in the same rearward, Occipital direction evidenced by the splatter in the aforementioned photo...
Clint Hill also looked in to the tunnel-like wound that he said was in the back of the head until he adjusted his story just like Carrico did...Hill saw a plug of brain, skull, and flesh in the back seat, that had obviously dropped out of that gaping wound and fallen in the back seat...That plug of gore matched the rear-exiting blood splatter pattern...
The Bell Film caught some rear-exiting flesh...
I'm not "trying to get away with" ANYTHING!
Hargis, as early back as the 60's, said to many people, including Penn Jones and Jim Garrison during the trial-that he "Rode into the matter" that exploded from "THE SIDE OF HIS (JFK's) HEAD". He did not see anything happen to the back of his head, as you contend-and he had the perfect view of the back of JFK's head. Instead, he saw the right SIDE of JFK's head explode-his words not mine.. Sorry, but you are way behind the times, Brian. This is all old stuff that only a well studied researcher already knows.
Clint Hill, the man who is all over the place when he was placing his hand on where he said the head would was. He's also the same man who, in recent years, began saying that the entire brain of JFK was gone, and that "there was nothing there". And you're also lying about what you say he saw in the back seat.
You've just shown that you know absolutely zero about forensics. The head matter that exited the top of the head the and went all over the Connally's, and Kellerman the windshield, hood, sun visors (right sun visor, both sides of it), interior, side rails, etc. I have made gif's of matter falling out of the front, top of the head, as JFK falls forward and sideways, onto Mrs. Kennedy, and it spills out of that massive hole in top of the head which the autopsy photo I just posted clearly reveals.
Mark Bell did NOT capture the assassination on film, so you're wrong about that, as well.
-
As you posted, Jackie said "TOP of his head". Not the "side" or the "upper side" or the "top side", but TOP. That Flap is not the TOP of the head.
Correct. That skull portion I circled is a portion of the area that she put the skull fragment back into place. All you have to do is look at Z frames 335 and 337, and you'll that massive portion of the skull hanging by scalp to the front of the ear and extending over the temple. That skull is rounded because it connects to the head where the side of the head and the top meet. Look also at the "Rear of the head" autopsy photo that shows this large skull fragment in the same position as seen in the Zapruder film.
-
Correct. That skull portion I circled is a portion of the area that she put the skull fragment back into place. All you have to do is look at Z frames 335 and 337, and you'll that massive portion of the skull hanging by scalp to the front of the ear and extending over the temple. That skull is rounded because it connects to the head where the side of the head and the top meet. Look also at the "Rear of the head" autopsy photo that shows this large skull fragment in the same position as seen in the Zapruder film.
You have access to better JFK Assassination images than I do. This access is Not restricted to the Zapruder Film. I'll take your word for the Z Frames 335 and 337 descriptions.
The autopsy photos are a different story. The Lifton revelation of "surgery to the head area" taints the autopsy photos. Also, what do we know with certainty happened to the body of JFK, IMMEDIATELY AFTER the SS flexed their muscle and forcibly took possession of the ceremonial casket at Parkland Hospital?
-
Wrong...
You are just digging your hole deeper...
JFK's "side of the head" that Carrico gestures towards is facing the Knoll at the time Carrico said it was avulsive and ejecting in that direction...
You are misquoting Hargis who said the splatter hit him so hard he thought he had been shot by the bullet...That statement matches the splatter seen in that direction on the seat back cushion...You can't get around that and it is hard blood splatter forensic evidence in a direction that seriously conflicts with what Carrico is saying...
Hill went from saying too much and exactly describing the front to back Occipital wound and plug of gore to adjusting his story to resemble the official story wound just like Carrico...
The hole that you've dug yourself into is so deep you'll never see the surface, so don't talk to me about digging holes, Brian.
I have corrected so many mistakes you've made, then completely ignore.
Of course Dr. Carrico is talking about the right side of the head! Avulsed means a body part that has been completely torn or pulled away by force. Look up the word. And Dr. Carrico is describing what he saw in that area after the bullet exited the top of the head. So you're going to tell us that the mess I surrounded in red doesn't look avulsed to you? Why of course not! To you! You see only what you want to see, and what you "see" is fantasy. Where Dr. Carrico has his fingers placed on his head isn't where the wound is, and I am definitely not saying that it is, either. Where he has his fingers is where the large skull flap/piece is hanging by scalp, a portion of which connects to the top of the skull. Funny thing. Almost everyone who describes JFK's head wound thinks that that massive skull fragment is the head wound, when it isn't. It's a flap of skull hanging upside down and inside out, facing the camera.
I am not misquoting Hargis! Hargis never, at any time, said that he was hit by a "force"! Get with the program, Brian. Tink Thompson started that crap in "Six Seconds in Dallas" about Hargis being hit with such "force...", and then he inserted something Hargis said to the New York Daily News the day after the assassination to try to make his point. Nowhere at any time during any of the interviews Hargis gave to individuals or groups that have been made public about being struck by head matter with any "force".
-
You are filibustering and evading the point...
Carrico's wound is disproven by the blood spatter evidence that backs the rear-exiting Occipital wound that Hill first admitted and then changed his story...
Not only does the blood spatter evidence on the back seat back Hill's first descriptions but it also disproves Carrico's obvious lie...
-
You are filibustering and evading the point...
Carrico's wound is disproven by the blood spatter evidence that backs the rear-exiting Occipital wound that Hill first admitted and then changed his story...
Not only does the blood spatter evidence on the back seat back Hill's first descriptions but it also disproves Carrico's obvious lie...
Why do you suppose Z313 shows all the spatter going upward and forward? Why do you think JBC said he was showered with pieces of brain as big as his thumbnail? How does that happen if the blood and brain exited from the occipital?
-
The hole that you've dug yourself into is so deep you'll never see the surface, so don't talk to me about digging holes, Brian.
I have corrected so many mistakes you've made, then completely ignore.
Of course Dr. Carrico is talking about the right side of the head! Avulsed means a body part that has been completely torn or pulled away by force. Look up the word. And Dr. Carrico is describing what he saw in that area after the bullet exited the top of the head. So you're going to tell us that the mess I surrounded in red doesn't look avulsed to you? Why of course not! To you! You see only what you want to see, and what you "see" is fantasy. Where Dr. Carrico has his fingers placed on his head isn't where the wound is, and I am definitely not saying that it is, either. Where he has his fingers is where the large skull flap/piece is hanging by scalp, a portion of which connects to the top of the skull. Funny thing. Almost everyone who describes JFK's head wound thinks that that massive skull fragment is the head wound, when it isn't. It's a flap of skull hanging upside down and inside out, facing the camera.
I am not misquoting Hargis! Hargis never, at any time, said that he was hit by a "force"! Get with the program, Brian. Tink Thompson started that crap in "Six Seconds in Dallas" about Hargis being hit with such "force...", and then he inserted something Hargis said to the New York Daily News the day after the assassination to try to make his point. Nowhere at any time during any of the interviews Hargis gave to individuals or groups that have been made public about being struck by head matter with any "force".
I put more weight into "sworn testimony" vs "interviews". Officer Hargis gave WC Testimony that he ran to that "wall", "brick wall" so as to see atop the Triple Underpass. This "wall" being the wall running down from the Zapruder Perch. Hargis initially thought that a shot(s) had been fired from somewhere in Front of the JFK Limo. Fired from Up on the Triple Underpass. This was due to the physical reaction of JFK and the blood/brain matter being thrown back into Hargis. Over time, Hargis modified his impressions, but his WC Sworn Testimony stands. He ran to that "wall" to get a look at the Top of the Triple Underpass.
-
Why do you suppose Z313 shows all the splatter going upward and forward? Why do you think JBC said he was showered with pieces of brain as big as his thumbnail? How does that happen if the blood and brain exited from the occipital?
The above is funny. The Z Film shows ALL of that crappola going "upward and forward"? Yet, somehow, ALL of this carnage completely disappears from the film in Less than 2 seconds? If Hargis simply rode his motorcycle through all of that crappola, Elm St should have also been covered with this debris as it drifted down onto the pavement. That never happened.
-
I put more weight into "sworn testimony" vs "interviews". Officer Hargis gave WC Testimony that he ran to that "wall", "brick wall" so as to see atop the Triple Underpass. This "wall" being the wall running down from the Zapruder Perch. Hargis initially thought that a shot(s) had been fired from somewhere in Front of the JFK Limo. Fired from Up on the Triple Underpass. This was due to the physical reaction of JFK and the blood/brain matter being thrown back into Hargis. Over time, Hargis modified his impressions, but his WC Sworn Testimony stands. He ran to that "wall" to get a look at the Top of the Triple Underpass.
The blood and brain matter wasn't thrown backward into Hargis. It was dispersed forward and upward and Hargis simply drove through it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
The country road I live on used to have a bad pothole at one end. When it rained, the pothole would fill with water and I would usually forget it was there. When I drove through it, my windshield would get soaked. It was not because the water was being thrown backward. It was because the water splashed forward and upward just like the blood and brain from JFK's head. My car was moving faster than the water getting splashed so my windshield would go right through it. Same principle.
-
The blood and brain matter wasn't thrown into Hargis. It was dispersed forward and upward and Hargis simply drove through it. it's not a difficult concept to grasp.
The country road I live on used to have a bad pothole at one end. When it rained, the pothole would fill with water and I would usually forget it was there. When I drove through it, my windshield would get soaked. It's was not because the water was being thrown backward. It was because the water splashed forward and upward just like the blood and brain from JFK's head. My car was moving faster than the water getting splashed so my windshield would go right through it. Same principle.
And what about NO Crappola on the surface of Elm St?
I have driven through many potholes with water in them. Never has this splashed onto my windshield. That is flat-out screwy.
-
And what about NO Crappola on the surface of Elm St?
Bone fragments were found on Elm St. I'm quite sure blood and brains would have been on the pavement also.
I have driven through many potholes with water in them. Never has this splashed onto my windshield. That is flat-out screwy.
Maybe your potholes weren't as deep as mine or maybe you weren't going fast enough. I know it happened to me several times before the pothole got fixed. I was surprised that the water would splash my windshield too, but then I figured out why it happened.
-
Yeah, everyone should listen to a guy who completely changed his story decades later and who said in 1997 that he'd never read any documented evidence that refuted the Warren Commission's lone-gunman theory, never mind that the House Select Committee on Assassinations, after doing a far more through and longer investigation from September 1976 to March 1979, rejected the Warren Commission's version of the shooting, rejected its whitewash of Ruby, and said JFK was killed by a conspiracy. And never mind that Carrico never explained all of his initial descriptions of the wounds, and never explained why he repeated those descriptions to the HSCA in 1978. Wow, totally credible. You bet.
-
Bone fragments were found on Elm St. I'm quite sure blood and brains would have been on the pavement also.
Maybe your potholes weren't as deep as mine or maybe you weren't going fast enough. I know it happened to me several times before the pothole got fixed. I was surprised that the water would splash my windshield too, but then I figured out why it happened.
What are you driving? A Backhoe? An automobile has 4 fenders. The 4 fenders catch the water that is churned upward by the 4 tires.
-
What are you driving? A Backhoe? An automobile has 4 fenders. The 4 fenders catch the water that is churned upward by the 4 tires.
I can only tell you what happened. My windshield got soaked and it was not the result of backsplash. Some of the water went upward and I drove through it. I was driving a pickup truck at the time.
-
The blood and brain matter wasn't thrown backward into Hargis. It was dispersed forward and upward and Hargis simply drove through it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
LOL! Yet another example of how uninformed you are about well-known, widely discussed evidence.
Hargis said he was splattered with blood and then with brain and that the particulate spray hit him with such force that he thought he himself had been hit by concrete or something:
I was splattered with blood... then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. (Daily News, November 24, 1963)
When President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet hit him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a bloody water. (6 H 294)
This is not surprising, since Charles Brehm, who was standing across the street from the grassy knoll, said he saw a piece of skull blown backward and to the left from JFK's skull when his head was hit:
It was very definite then that he was struck in the head. . . . I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb. . . . It seemed to have come left and back. . . . Whatever it was that I saw did fall both in that direction and over into the curb there. (Associated Press article, 11/22/1966)
Patrolman B. J. Martin, riding to the left of Hargis and to the left rear of the limo was also splattered with blood, though not as forcefully as Hargis was. Martin said blood splattered onto his windshield, his motor, the left shoulder of his uniform, and the left side of his helmet (6 H 292). He added that the blood was accompanied by what looked like pieces of flesh:
Mr. BALL. And were there any other spots of any other material on the helmet there besides blood?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. There was other matter that looked like pieces of flesh. (6 H 292)
And, no, the particulate spray was not blown "forward and upward." Where do you get that? Do you have a version of the Zapruder film that no one else has seen? Much of the spray was blown rightward and downward, which is why we can still see part of Jackie's head in Z313 and nearly all of her head in Z314.
On an important side note, the Zapruder film does not show any amount of blood and brain matter being blown, or floating, backward and to the left from the right-frontal explosion seen in Z313-314/315. The blob of particulate spray impossibly disappears by Z316, if not by Z315, whereas ballistics tests and footage of head shots prove the spray should have remained visible for at least six frames.
Not only does the Zapruder film show no particulate spray being blown toward Hargis and Martin, but it shows no large cloud of blood and brain matter that Hargis and Martin could have driven through.
-
Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes and an objective mind can look at Z313 and see the blood and brain matter is being discharge forward and upward. In addition, JFK's head moves forward several inches from its position at Z312. The Z-film is not the friend of anyone postulating a frontal head shot.
During the mock trial of LHO in London, Bugliosi called HSCA photo expert Cecil Kirk. He begins his analysis of Z313 beginning about 5:30 of the video. A high contrast version of Z313 is shown which shows particulate matter being discharged forward and upward.
-
I can only tell you what happened. My windshield got soaked and it was not the result of backsplash. Some of the water went upward and I drove through it. I was driving a pickup truck at the time.
OK. You were driving a "pickup truck". What were you smoking? NOBODY drives into a pothole and as a result, throws water that was inside that pothole onto the windshield of their car. You are making LN's look looney tunes.
-
Anyone with a functioning pair of eyes and an objective mind can look at Z313 and see the blood and brain matter is being discharge forward and upward. In addition, JFK's head moves forward several inches from its position at Z312. The Z-film is not the friend of anyone postulating a frontal head shot.
During the mock trial of LHO in London, Bugliosi called HSCA photo expert Cecil Kirk. He begins his analysis of Z313 beginning about 5:30 of the video. A high contrast version of Z313 is shown which shows particulate matter being discharged forward and upward.
You call 5:30 "high contrast"? That image is absolute garbage. Your 5:30 visual aid explains a lot of your misconceptions. Come out of your cave and look at far better copies of the Current Z Film. There are now copies of the film showing SA Clint Hill looking back over his (R) shoulder while on the JFK Limo trunk lid. This is between the sprocket holes action as the Limo speeds toward the Triple Underpass. A lot has been revealed since that ancient English mock trial.
-
The Blood Splatter on the back seat, as seen in the photo at the White House Garage basement, shows a shot the exited the rear Occiput...
There is no splatter for the wound Carrico is lying about in the Parietal...
-
The Blood Splatter on the back seat, as seen in the photo at the White House Garage basement, shows a shot the exited the rear Occiput...
There is no splatter for the wound Carrico is lying about in the Parietal...
Take a good look at a high def image of the Newman Family sprawled on the knoll grass. You can see splotches of red scattered on the grass around them. Probably spewed out of that Flap in JFK's (R) temple area. The (R) side of the Limo backseat area should have also been plastered with this same blood/brain matter. This is why they needed to use that Scrub Bucket on the JFK Limo backseat area at Parkland Hospital. The photos taken by the FBI of the JFK Limo backseat area were photos of an altered crime scene.
-
The referenced photo of the limousine back seat shows only one splatter pattern on the upper part of the back seat cushion where the back of Kennedy's head was...That direction is Occipital and it matches the descriptions of all the witnesses who saw only one Occipital exit wound...
We know this wound was covered-up by the conspirators because the intact back of the head autopsy photo shows a need to conceal incriminating evidence...
-
The referenced photo of the limousine back seat shows only one splatter pattern on the upper part of the back seat cushion where the back of Kennedy's head was...That direction is Occipital and it matches the descriptions of all the witnesses who saw only one Occipital exit wound...
We know this wound was covered-up by the conspirators because the intact back of the head autopsy photo shows a need to conceal incriminating evidence...
Yeah? And here's the interesting fact, Mr. Doyle.
Any blood, brain or skull tissue on that portion of the backseat would have been completely wiped off and onto the dress that Mrs. Kennedy was wearing, as her skirt and lower portion of her top would have wiped from the seat onto her clothing. All one has to do is look at her position as she rises from the seat and begins to crawl out of the seat. Brian Doyle doesn't accept this as a fact, even with photographic proof that her upper body rubbed against that portion of the seat.
View Zapruder film frames 363-395 to see Mrs. Kennedy's position against the back seat and notice she's against the the area Doyle says is "Proof" of a frontal shot.
(http://)(https://i.ibb.co/S4VPq3xX/JFK-BACK-SEAT.png)
-
(Snipped)
There is no splatter for the wound Carrico is lying about in the Parietal...
No? What about all the splatter that landed on the Connally's and Kellerman? Kellerman described it as feeling like "moist sawdust" when it struck him, and Mrs. Connally described it as "buckshot" striking her. The governor saw a piece of brain tissue on his pants that was the size of his thumbnail. Blood spatter that is photographed on the windshield? How about all the blood and brain tissue Robert Frazier said was all over the inside and outside of the car, which can be seen in the photos of the limousine at the White House garage? This is all from the carcano that Dr. Carrico mentioned.
-
No? What about all the splatter that landed on the Connally's and Kellerman? Kellerman described it as feeling like "moist sawdust" when it struck him, and Mrs. Connally described it as "buckshot" striking her. The governor saw a piece of brain tissue on his pants that was the size of his thumbnail. Blood spatter that is photographed on the windshield? How about all the blood and brain tissue Robert Frazier said was all over the inside and outside of the car, which can be seen in the photos of the limousine at the White House garage? This is all from the carcano that Dr. Carrico mentioned.
So we have all of this blood/brain matter being thrown toward the Front of the JFK Limo? So how is Officer Hargis, riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo allegedly riding into a cloud of this crappola that is simply falling STRAIGHT DOWN. You can Not have the blood/brain matter being thrown Forward, Backward, Sideways, and Straight Up and Then Straight Down.
-
So we have all of this blood/brain matter being thrown toward the Front of the JFK Limo? So how is Officer Hargis, riding on the (L) rear of the JFK Limo allegedly riding into a cloud of this crappola that is simply falling STRAIGHT DOWN. You can Not have the blood/brain matter being thrown Forward, Backward, Sideways, and Straight Up and Then Straight Down.
Yes sir. All you need to do is read the WC testimony of the occupants in the car. The only person who didn't comment about being struck by head matter was Greer. Also read the testimony of Robert Frazier regarding his description of where-in and on the car-blood and bits of brain were located front to rear and side to side.
I first read about the Connally's being overwhelmed with head matter in both "The Day Kennedy Was shot" by Jim Bishop and "The Death of a President" by William Manchester, in 1969.
-
OK. You were driving a "pickup truck". What were you smoking? NOBODY drives into a pothole and as a result, throws water that was inside that pothole onto the windshield of their car. You are making LN's look looney tunes.
The water wasn't thrown into the windshield. The windshield moved into the water.
-
Yeah? And here's the interesting fact, Mr. Doyle.
Any blood, brain or skull tissue on that portion of the backseat would have been completely wiped off and onto the dress that Mrs. Kennedy was wearing, as her skirt and lower portion of her top would have wiped from the seat onto her clothing. All one has to do is look at her position as she rises from the seat and begins to crawl out of the seat. Brian Doyle doesn't accept this as a fact, even with photographic proof that her upper body rubbed against that portion of the seat.
(http://)(https://i.ibb.co/S4VPq3xX/JFK-BACK-SEAT.png)
If you had any idea of what you were talking about you would see your own image shows that the splatter from the Occipital wound was laid down first (according to gunshot spatter science) and therefore proves what you are saying is wrong since it is still visible in your own image...
Sorry, you can't make that go away - which is why blood spatter forensics are so damning...
-
If you had any idea of what you were talking about you would see your own image shows that the splatter from the Occipital wound was laid down first (according to gunshot spatter science) and therefore proves what you are saying is wrong since it is still visible in your own image...
Sorry, you can't make that go away - which is why blood spatter forensics are so damning...
So tell us where and when you received your training in blood splatter science.
-
What you are seeing there is the top ejecta that possessed the Occipital plug and shot out over the top of the seat back followed by the heavier brain matter that slopped down in to the back seat and was seen oozing out by the medical witnesses...
ALL IN THE DIRECTION OF A REAR-EXITING OCCIPITAL WOUND AS SEEN AT PARKLAND...
This wound was clearly described by Clint Hill as he looked down in to it in the back of JFK's head...Hill was then forced to lie and his story progressed towards what Carrico also changed his story to...
-
Yeah? And here's the interesting fact, Mr. Doyle.
Any blood, brain or skull tissue on that portion of the backseat would have been completely wiped off and onto the dress that Mrs. Kennedy was wearing, as her skirt and lower portion of her top would have wiped from the seat onto her clothing. All one has to do is look at her position as she rises from the seat and begins to crawl out of the seat. Brian Doyle doesn't accept this as a fact, even with photographic proof that her upper body rubbed against that portion of the seat.
View Zapruder film frames 363-395 to see Mrs. Kennedy's position against the back seat and notice she's against the the area Doyle says is "Proof" of a frontal shot.
(http://)(https://i.ibb.co/S4VPq3xX/JFK-BACK-SEAT.png)
So the Zapruder Film shows a "Flap" wound in JFK's (R) Temple Region with a geyser of Blood/Brain Matter spewing from it, yet the FBI Photo's show it's the (L) side of the Limo backseat that is covered with Blood/Brain Matter. How does this work?
-
The rear Occipital exit wound seen by the witnesses at Parkland already disproved the bursting Parietal flap wound seen in the Zapruder Film...It gives me the creeps to imagine where and how CIA got that bursting flap image and makes me wonder if they blew someone's head off, filmed it, and cut it in to Zapruder...
The blood spatter evidence is the better kinetic, material evidence...
Of the two, the film evidence was within the cutting edge ability of the conspirators to manipulate and therefore tells you which to believe...
We have the Parkland eye witnessing that matches the blood spatter evidence...And then we have the frame 313 avulsive wound that conflicts with the other two...
-
What you are seeing there is the top ejecta that possessed the Occipital plug and shot out over the top of the seat back followed by the heavier brain matter that slopped down in to the back seat and was seen oozing out by the medical witnesses...
ALL IN THE DIRECTION OF A REAR-EXITING OCCIPITAL WOUND AS SEEN AT PARKLAND...
This wound was clearly described by Clint Hill as he looked down in to it in the back of JFK's head...Hill was then forced to lie and his story progressed towards what Carrico also changed his story to...
Either that or maybe you're just an idiot.