JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on June 22, 2019, 07:16:27 PM

Title: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Bill Brown on June 22, 2019, 07:16:27 PM
As for the autopsy photos and X-rays, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.

The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from above and behind.

The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from behind.

The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck from behind.

Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Thomas Graves on June 22, 2019, 08:32:56 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for the autopsy photos and X-rays, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.

The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from above and behind.

The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from behind.

The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck from behind.


FAKE NEWS!

DEEP STATE!



(sarcasm)

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Royell Storing on June 22, 2019, 09:23:00 PM

     So exhume the Body of JFK. They did likewise with the body of Oswald and resolved those questions.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 24, 2019, 02:34:38 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As for the autopsy photos and X-rays, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.

The Clark Panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from above and behind.

The Rockefeller Commission studied the autopsy X-rays and photos and concluded that the head was struck once from behind.

The HSCA forensic panel studied the autopsy X-rays and photos (and interviewed the Kennedy autopsy personnel in order to verify the validity of the photos and X-rays) and concluded that the head was struck from behind.

The re-examination of the autopsy materials and the formation of the Clark Panel was in response to criticism of the WC.

The entrance wound in the back of JFK's skull slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP doesn't line up with a shooter on the 6th

floor SE corner of the TSBD. The Clark Panel moved the wound 4 inches up on JFK's skull, from the EOP to the crown, to accommodate a

6th floor shooter. Dr. Finck noted in his after action report of the review of the x-rays and photos that the photo of the inside of JFK's

skull, that was made to show the EOP entrance wound, was not among the material reviewed.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 24, 2019, 03:53:59 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The re-examination of the autopsy materials and the formation of the Clark Panel was in response to criticism of the WC.

The entrance wound in the back of JFK's skull slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP doesn't line up with a shooter on the 6th

floor SE corner of the TSBD. The Clark Panel moved the wound 4 inches up on JFK's skull, from the EOP to the crown, to accommodate a

6th floor shooter. Dr. Finck noted in his after action report of the review of the x-rays and photos that the photo of the inside of JFK's

skull, that was made to show the EOP entrance wound, was not among the material reviewed.

In the so-called "Military Review", the three pathologists who did the autopsy at Bethesda authenticated the autopsy photos and X-rays, but included the following admission:

    "Due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation
     of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be
     photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly
     higher than its actually measured site."

A year later, using the same photographs and X-rays, the Clark Panel determined that the skull in-shoot was indeed higher than "its actually measured site". Some 10 cm-or-so higher. But the Clark Panel had no need for ridiculous face-saving explanations for the now-high-position in-shoot like "manual lifting" and "fractures of the underlying bone".

There's no indication that the Bethesda team exposed the surface of the occipital bone (that involves severing a multitude of attachments at the EOP) at autopsy. It seems unlikely that they manually and visually measured the in-shoot relative to the EOP, instead using palpation to find what Humes assumed was the EOP.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/dox/JFK%20F-307.jpg)

The occipital bone has no midline on the external surface above the EOP, so a measurement from the midline of the exposed skull could only be if the in-shoot was in the parietal bone. It would seem to me that they mistook a bump below the scalp for the EOP; they suggest a reason with "fractures of the underlying bone".

A fracture edge or small piece of loose bone between the scalp and skull could easily be mistook for the EOP. A clear admission from Humes would have undermined his profession esteem. And so he was allowed to dance around the issue in interviews with the HSCA and JAMA. No one challenged him and Boswell. They got away with it while making fun of JFK researcher "amateurs" who essentially defended their lower entry site.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 24, 2019, 05:21:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In the so-called "Military Review", the three pathologists who did the autopsy at Bethesda authenticated the autopsy photos and X-rays, but included the following admission:

    "Due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation
     of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be
     photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly
     higher than its actually measured site."

A year later, using the same photographs and X-rays, the Clark Panel determined that the skull in-shoot was indeed higher than "its actually measured site". Some 10 cm-or-so higher. But the Clark Panel had no need for ridiculous face-saving explanations for the now-high-position in-shoot like "manual lifting" and "fractures of the underlying bone".

There's no indication that the Bethesda team exposed the surface of the occipital bone (that involves severing a multitude of attachments at the EOP) at autopsy. It seems unlikely that they manually and visually measured the in-shoot relative to the EOP, instead using palpation to find what Humes assumed was the EOP.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/hsca/dox/JFK%20F-307.jpg)

The occipital bone has no midline on the external surface above the EOP, so a measurement from the midline of the exposed skull could only be if the in-shoot was in the parietal bone. It would seem to me that they mistook a bump below the scalp for the EOP; they suggest a reason with "fractures of the underlying bone".

A fracture edge or small piece of loose bone between the scalp and skull could easily be mistook for the EOP. A clear admission from Humes would have undermined his profession esteem. And so he was allowed to dance around the issue in interviews with the HSCA and JAMA. No one challenged him and Boswell. They got away with it while making fun of JFK researcher "amateurs" who essentially defended their lower entry site.

Humes
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0119a.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0107b.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0056a.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0050a.jpg)

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

Finck
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shaw1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/dhor-insapp-01_0001_0153.jpg)
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 24, 2019, 05:51:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Humes
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0119a.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0107b.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0056a.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0050a.jpg)

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

Finck
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shaw1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fincksreport.jpg%202_1.jpg)

What's the point of all this? The scalp was reflected but not to the level of the EOP. Finck claims to have seen the opening on the exterior of the skull, which simply means the scalp was reflected to show the "cowlick" in-shoot. Doesn't say the scalp reflection exposed the EOP and that they visually associated the in-shoot with a direct observation of the EOP. Humes used palpation to find a bump below the scalp he mistook for the "EOP". The photographs and X-rays revealed the mistake.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 24, 2019, 05:53:38 PM
The WC
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/jfk%20autopsy1.jpg)

The Clark Panel
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/clark%20panel.gif)
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 24, 2019, 06:02:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
What's the point of all this? The scalp was reflected but not to the level of the EOP. Finck claims to have seen the opening on the exterior of the skull, which simply means the scalp was reflected to show the "cowlick" in-shoot. Doesn't say the scalp reflection exposed the EOP and that they visually associated the in-shoot with a direct observation of the EOP. Humes used palpation to find a bump below the scalp he mistook for the "EOP". The photographs and X-rays revealed the mistake.

All 3 autopsy doctors said the wound was at the EOP not in the cowlick.
Humes said they examined the wound closely, measured it and had photos taken of it.

The Clark Panel was created in response to criticism of the WCR.
One criticism was a EOP entrance wound in JFK's skull doesn't work with a shooter firing from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD.
The Panel moved the wound 4 inches to the cowlick. A spot that works with a 6th floor shooter.
The photos the autopsy doctors had taken showing the location of the wound at the EOP disappeared from the archives.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 24, 2019, 07:16:29 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
All 3 autopsy doctors said the wound was at the EOP not in the cowlick.
Humes said they examined the wound closely, measured it and had photos taken of it.

The report says the wound was "slightly above" the EOP, which seems to me consistent with palpation and making an unmeasured guess. The only measurement actually made is lateral from the mid-line. The area of the occipital bone above the EOP has no external mid-line. There is, however, a mid-line (or suture line) laterally over from the "cowlick" wound. The Clark Panel determined from autopsy materials authenticated by the Bethesda autopsy doctors that the in-shoot was significantly higher than the EOP.

Quote
The Clark Panel was created in response to criticism of the WCR.

I think Humes urged a review.** Possibly Finck and Boswell told Humes than he had make a serious palpation error and that they would sign-off on the "Military Review" if Humes consented to a new review.

Quote
One criticism was a EOP entrance wound in JFK's skull doesn't work with a shooter firing from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD.

Doesn't Larry Strudivan think the bullet entered the skull near the EOP per Humes' location? I'm pretty sure he's able to make it work with a SN shot.

Quote
The Panel moved the wound 4 inches to the cowlick. A spot that works with a 6th floor shooter.

By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?

Quote
The photos the autopsy doctors had taken showing the location of the wound at the EOP disappeared from the archives.

The "Military Review" says no materials are missing. They therefore took a picture of the scalp in-shoot only. After the scalp was reflected and the brain removed, they took one view of the interior of the cranium. The skull was severely fractured and I don't think they could just keep reflecting the rear of the scalp to the EOP without pieces falling off.

I wonder why Humes et al keep referencing the bullet entered the skull from behind and somewhat above? I think they may have been comparing the skull in-shoot level with the gaping wound. An entry at the EOP level doesn't work as well as one higher. An angle between an EOP level entry wound to the gaping wound level would best be described as from behind and BELOW.

** It was actually Boswell who wrote the letter to the Justice Dept. urging a review. It was dated January 26, 1968, a full year after the "Military Review".
That 1967 three-pathologist "Military Review" was done at the request of the Justice Dept.

    "The undersigned physicians have been requested by the Department of Justice to examine
     the x-rays and photographs for the purpose of determining whether they are consistent
     with the autopsy report."

Concerning his 1968 letter, Boswell claimed to the JFK Assassination Records Review Board:

    "I was asked by ... one of the attorneys for the Justice Department that I write them
     a letter and request a civilian group be appointed by the Justice Department, I believe,
     or the President or somebody. And I did write a letter to him, Carl Eardley."

That seems strange since the "Military Review" came about as a direct request from Justice.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 24, 2019, 07:36:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The report says the wound was "slightly above" the EOP, which seems to me consistent with palpation and making an unmeasured guess. The only measurement actually made is lateral from the mid-line. The area of the occipital bone above the EOP has no external mid-line. There is, however, a mid-line (or suture line) laterally over from the "cowlick" wound. The Clark Panel determined from autopsy materials authenticated by the Bethesda autopsy doctors that the in-shoot was significantly higher than the EOP.

I think Humes urged a review. Possibly Finck and Boswell told Humes than he had make a serious palpation error and that they would sign-off on the "Military Review" if Humes consented to a new review.

Doesn't Larry Strudivan think the bullet entered the skull near the EOP per Humes' location? I'm pretty sure he's able to make it work with a SN shot.

By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?

The "Military Review" says no materials are missing. They therefore took a picture of the scalp in-shoot only. After the scalp was reflected and the brain removed, they took one view of the interior of the cranium. The skull was severely fractured and I don't think they could just keep reflecting the rear of the scalp to the EOP without pieces falling off.

I wonder why Humes et al keep referencing the bullet entered the skull from behind and somewhat above? I think they may have been comparing the skull in-shoot level with the gaping wound. An entry at the EOP level doesn't work as well as one higher. An angle between an EOP level entry wound to the gaping wound level would best be described as from behind and BELOW.

"The Clark Panel determined from autopsy materials authenticated by the Bethesda autopsy doctors that the in-shoot was significantly higher than the EOP."

The Clark Panel moved the wound 4 inches! 

All three autopsy doctors, who held JFK's skull in their hands, stuck by the EOP location until their deaths.

Where are the photo's?

Do you believe they didn't document the fatal wound's location with photo's?

 
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Louis Earl on June 24, 2019, 09:10:27 PM
The famous "Brylcreem" photo of the intact back of the head was contradicted by everyone who saw the back of the head in Dallas. 
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: John Mytton on June 24, 2019, 11:39:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The famous "Brylcreem" photo of the intact back of the head was contradicted by everyone who saw the back of the head in Dallas.

Well actually there were at least two photos of the back of the Presidents head. When two of these stereoscopic photos are combined we see every pixel, skin crease, blemishes, individual hairs and general head shape is correctly depth mapped across both images meaning that both photos were taken of JFK's authenticated head and both show only a single bullet entrance wound.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5PMz9F9/JFKBOH.gif)

And as for Dallas eyewitnesses, the very first eyewitnesses to be interviewed only hours later on TV all describe the same damage as seen in the Zapruder film, X Rays, Autopsy photos, etc etc..

(https://i.postimg.cc/SNchjxf4/Dealey-Plaza-Eyewitnesses2-zpsc1d78c8b.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/MKh1mx4d/alotofevidence2.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Royell Storing on June 25, 2019, 01:40:46 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well actually there were at least two photos of the back of the Presidents head. When two of these stereoscopic photos are combined we see every pixel, skin crease, blemishes, individual hairs and general head shape is correctly depth mapped across both images meaning that both photos were taken of JFK's authenticated head and both show only a single bullet entrance wound.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5PMz9F9/JFKBOH.gif)

And as for Dallas eyewitnesses, the very first eyewitnesses to be interviewed only hours later on TV all describe the same damage as seen in the Zapruder film, X Rays, Autopsy photos, etc etc..

(https://i.postimg.cc/SNchjxf4/Dealey-Plaza-Eyewitnesses2-zpsc1d78c8b.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/MKh1mx4d/alotofevidence2.jpg)

JohnM

         Correction: What you should say is, "both photos were taken of................" the SAME HEAD.   
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 02:50:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
         Correction: What you should say is, "both photos were taken of................" the SAME HEAD.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5PMz9F9/JFKBOH.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/VvpqHbfH/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

No, it's always Kennedy. The HSCA did an extensive study on the authenticity of the Autopsy Photos and here is a few examples of their proof;

First of all they measured all the individual facial parts and by using photogrammetric rules they calculated the positions and distances between skin blemishes, creases, ears, eyes, neck, mouth, nose, chin etc.

(https://i.postimg.cc/FsXXwCYG/measuringjfk-zps38b4509b-1.jpg)

For instance here's Kennedy's neck creases which line up from front to back.

(https://i.postimg.cc/9X7j8HQr/jfkneckcrease-zpse53faea0-1.jpg)

And we also can see a random mark on Kennedy's back which is repeated in the top down photo.

(https://i.postimg.cc/pTgMWqqW/backbloodstripe-zps00e18caf-1.jpg)

When the entire set of autopsy photos is examined as a whole, like a jigsaw puzzle each photo has links in other photos.

Btw isn't getting some other guy and performing plastic surgery on him, then blowing his brains out a little extreme?

JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 25, 2019, 01:01:00 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


When the entire set of autopsy photos is examined as a whole, like a jigsaw puzzle each photo has links in other photos.

JohnM

But according to the people who took the photos, we haven't seen the entire set.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 25, 2019, 03:46:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But according to the people who took the photos, we haven't seen the entire set.

So you agree that what we do have is authentic?
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 25, 2019, 05:35:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So you agree that what we do have is authentic?

No.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 25, 2019, 05:57:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No.

I'm halfway through "At the Cold Shoulder of History" part of which details James C. Jenkins' belief that the published autopsy photographs were not taken at Bethesda. Here's a fellow who was at the Bethesda autopsy and who has a photographic memory. Says he didn't give the JFK autopsy hardy any thought until receiving an interview request from the HSCA in 1977.

Now he's convinced there was an unattached brain sitting in the cranium when the body was brought in. I guess if he didn't witness firsthand Humes severing the brain stem. it must not have happened.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Royell Storing on June 25, 2019, 06:17:39 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5PMz9F9/JFKBOH.gif)

(https://i.postimg.cc/VvpqHbfH/JFKAutopsy-Morphsmallermoreframes.gif)

No, it's always Kennedy. The HSCA did an extensive study on the authenticity of the Autopsy Photos and here is a few examples of their proof;

First of all they measured all the individual facial parts and by using photogrammetric rules they calculated the positions and distances between skin blemishes, creases, ears, eyes, neck, mouth, nose, chin etc.

(https://i.postimg.cc/FsXXwCYG/measuringjfk-zps38b4509b-1.jpg)

For instance here's Kennedy's neck creases which line up from front to back.

(https://i.postimg.cc/9X7j8HQr/jfkneckcrease-zpse53faea0-1.jpg)

And we also can see a random mark on Kennedy's back which is repeated in the top down photo.

(https://i.postimg.cc/pTgMWqqW/backbloodstripe-zps00e18caf-1.jpg)

When the entire set of autopsy photos is examined as a whole, like a jigsaw puzzle each photo has links in other photos.

Btw isn't getting some other guy and performing plastic surgery on him, then blowing his brains out a little extreme?

JohnM

    The discussion centered on the "Brylcreem Photo", and  you then post photos of everything But the Brylcream Photo. It's obvious why.  Is it possible that what you are innocently labeling a, "Random mark on Kennedy's back" = BULLET HOLE?
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 09:11:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    The discussion centered on the "Brylcreem Photo", and  you then post photos of everything But the Brylcream Photo. It's obvious why.  Is it possible that what you are innocently labeling a, "Random mark on Kennedy's back" = BULLET HOLE?

And his evidence that the "random marks" are "the same" is left as an exercise for the reader.  Much like the magic rifle gouge.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 09:40:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    The discussion centered on the "Brylcreem Photo", and  you then post photos of everything But the Brylcream Photo. It's obvious why.  Is it possible that what you are innocently labeling a, "Random mark on Kennedy's back" = BULLET HOLE?

Quote
The discussion centered on the "Brylcreem Photo", and  you then post photos of everything But the Brylcream Photo. It's obvious why.

I have no idea what the Brylcreem/Brylcream Photo is, how about you post it for me then I can see it?

Quote
Is it possible that what you are innocently labeling a, "Random mark on Kennedy's back" = BULLET HOLE?

No, you can't even see the bullet hole in one of those photos, where do you guys come from?

(https://i.postimg.cc/BbYPPzYF/backbloodstripe.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 10:26:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And his evidence that the "random marks" are "the same" is left as an exercise for the reader.  Much like the magic rifle gouge.

"magic rifle gouge" LOL!

JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Royell Storing on June 26, 2019, 01:03:33 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And his evidence that the "random marks" are "the same" is left as an exercise for the reader.  Much like the magic rifle gouge.

    I like his Slam Dunk ID = a Wrinkle on the neck. Angela Lansbury sleuth work.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: John Mytton on June 26, 2019, 01:29:07 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    I like his Slam Dunk ID = a Wrinkle on the neck. Angela Lansbury sleuth work.

You know I didn't say that, why would you lie, or don't you simply understand what's being discussed?

It's more like;

Slam Dunk ID = a Wrinkle on the neck PLUS skin blemishes PLUS facial features PLUS Facial size PLUS head size PLUS ear shape PLUS etc etc etc...

Btw have you ever been able to prove any of your photo baloney?

JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 27, 2019, 03:45:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The report says the wound was "slightly above" the EOP, which seems to me consistent with palpation and making an unmeasured guess. The only measurement actually made is lateral from the mid-line. The area of the occipital bone above the EOP has no external mid-line. There is, however, a mid-line (or suture line) laterally over from the "cowlick" wound. The Clark Panel determined from autopsy materials authenticated by the Bethesda autopsy doctors that the in-shoot was significantly higher than the EOP.

I think Humes urged a review.** Possibly Finck and Boswell told Humes than he had make a serious palpation error and that they would sign-off on the "Military Review" if Humes consented to a new review.

Doesn't Larry Strudivan think the bullet entered the skull near the EOP per Humes' location? I'm pretty sure he's able to make it work with a SN shot.

By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?

The "Military Review" says no materials are missing. They therefore took a picture of the scalp in-shoot only. After the scalp was reflected and the brain removed, they took one view of the interior of the cranium. The skull was severely fractured and I don't think they could just keep reflecting the rear of the scalp to the EOP without pieces falling off.

I wonder why Humes et al keep referencing the bullet entered the skull from behind and somewhat above? I think they may have been comparing the skull in-shoot level with the gaping wound. An entry at the EOP level doesn't work as well as one higher. An angle between an EOP level entry wound to the gaping wound level would best be described as from behind and BELOW.

** It was actually Boswell who wrote the letter to the Justice Dept. urging a review. It was dated January 26, 1968, a full year after the "Military Review".
That 1967 three-pathologist "Military Review" was done at the request of the Justice Dept.

    "The undersigned physicians have been requested by the Department of Justice to examine
     the x-rays and photographs for the purpose of determining whether they are consistent
     with the autopsy report."

Concerning his 1968 letter, Boswell claimed to the JFK Assassination Records Review Board:

    "I was asked by ... one of the attorneys for the Justice Department that I write them
     a letter and request a civilian group be appointed by the Justice Department, I believe,
     or the President or somebody. And I did write a letter to him, Carl Eardley."

That seems strange since the "Military Review" came about as a direct request from Justice.

"By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?"

No, that's not what I mean. Although there are competent people who believe they were, I'm not qualified to know either way.

By moved I mean the Panel decided a trail of metal particles across the top part of JFK's head x-ray was the path of a bullet that entered

at the cowlick. If they aren't fake the conclusions reached at the autopsy and by the Panel indicate 2 bullets hit JFK in the head. One

entering at the EOP and one above that traveled across the top of the skull, leaving a trail of metal particles.

IMO

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/XrayLateral.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/md73_0001a.jpg)
 
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 27, 2019, 04:27:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"By "moved" do you mean the autopsy materials the "Military Review" and the Clark Panel saw were fabricated?"

No, that's not what I mean. Although there are competent people who believe they were, I'm not qualified to know either way.

By moved I mean the Panel decided a trail of metal particles across the top part of JFK's head x-ray was the path of a bullet that entered

at the cowlick. If they aren't fake the conclusions reached at the autopsy and by the Panel indicate 2 bullets hit JFK in the head. One

entering at the EOP and one above that traveled across the top of the skull, leaving a trail of metal particles.

IMO

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/XrayLateral.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/md73_0001a.jpg)

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

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

All the Panel did was determine the true location of a wound Humes erroneously sited through palpation. Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP (is there a ruler with "slightly" markings?)
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 27, 2019, 04:56:03 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Simply wrong to characterize the Clark Panel's findings as supportive of two bullets hitting the head of the President:

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

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

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

I believe Humes stated it wasn't possible to determine the exact location of the wound in the skull from the available photo's. The autopsy doctors had requested  a photographic record be made of the entrance and exit of the EOP wound in the skull after the brain was removed and the scalp was retracted. Those are the photos that were, and still are missing when they reviewed the autopsy materials prior to the Clark Panel.
To claim that "slightly higher" means 4 inches, the amount the Clark Panel said the autopsy head wound location was off, paints the autopsy doctors completely incompetent and the autopsy a farce or the Clark Panel a desperate attempt by the government to counter criticism of the WCR. Pick your poison.  IMO
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 27, 2019, 07:58:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think they thought they had the head wound established rather quickly and easily through Humes' palpation and the documentation of the head wound with photography and X-rays. They were more concerned and mystified with the back wound and where the bullet went.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Royell Storing on June 27, 2019, 08:07:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Humes himself acknowledged "photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site", as if Humes actually measured the wound from the exposed EOP"

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

    55+ years after the Fact and I am still waiting for a logical explanation as to WHAT Humes was trying to display in the Autopsy Photo where that gloved hand is pulling the hair of JFK. All that did was completely Hide the entire back of JFK's head/skull.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 27, 2019, 08:39:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Prior to the four-inch-discrepancy (actually the correction of a palpation error) business, almost all the WC critics criticized the Bethesda doctors as incompetent and unqualified. The CTs changed their tune because they want the EOP in-shoot to be real as it challenges the LN conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Humes
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0119a.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0107b.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0056a.jpg)
------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Humes_0050a.jpg)

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

Finck
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shaw1.jpg)
-------------
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/dhor-insapp-01_0001_0153.jpg)
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 27, 2019, 09:31:47 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/fincksreport.jpg%202_1.jpg)

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

Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on June 27, 2019, 09:43:01 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/dhor-insapp-01_0001_0153.jpg)

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

Yes
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 27, 2019, 10:42:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    55+ years after the Fact and I am still waiting for a logical explanation as to WHAT Humes was trying to display in the Autopsy Photo where that gloved hand is pulling the hair of JFK. All that did was completely Hide the entire back of JFK's head/skull.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_f-3%28n15%29.jpg)  (https://i2.wp.com/thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/jfkcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg)

Is he "pulling the hair" or merely supporting the head with a thumb inside the cranium?
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Royell Storing on June 27, 2019, 10:55:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_f-3%28n15%29.jpg)  (https://i2.wp.com/thecharnelhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/jfkcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg)

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

   Are You Now claiming JFK's Scalp was still attached to the skull?? Also, that gloved Thumb looks like it would be close to the Top of the head and probably above the Eye or close to between the eyes.  Are You sure You want that thumb "inside the cranium"? Be careful. 
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 27, 2019, 11:16:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
   Are You Now claiming JFK's Scalp was still attached to the skull?? Also, that gloved Thumb looks like it would be close to the Top of the head and probably above the Eye or close to between the eyes.  Are You sure You want that thumb "inside the cranium"? Be careful.

So the doctor has his fore-fingers gripping the scalp on the rear of the head and the thumb part reaches back to the inside of the frontal bone between the eyes?
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: John Mytton on June 27, 2019, 11:24:45 PM
(https://i.postimg.cc/Z5PMz9F9/JFKBOH.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Royell Storing on June 28, 2019, 01:36:00 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So the doctor has his fore-fingers gripping the scalp on the rear of the head and the thumb part reaches back to the inside of the frontal bone between the eyes?

     For starters, a Hand has Only 1 Forefinger. You claimed the Thumb was "INSIDE the cranium". If you are sticking to that, then this missing skull/cavity in the Top of JFK 's head would need to be explained. 
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 28, 2019, 02:13:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
     For starters, a Hand has Only 1 Forefinger. You claimed the Thumb was "INSIDE the cranium". If you are sticking to that, then this missing skull/cavity in the Top of JFK 's head would need to be explained.

You can't see there's a gaping hole in the skull where the thumb is? The opening goes from above the right ear to about the apex.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1378740112111/hsca/dox/skull-fragmentation.jpg?height=400&width=294)

That's how I see it and how the HSCA depicted it. I don't what the heck you're seeing.

Also I don't see where the hair is being pulled or scalp held up. I think the scalp was generally attached near and below the skull in-shoot until reflection.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Royell Storing on June 29, 2019, 08:48:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You can't see there's a gaping hole in the skull where the thumb is? The opening goes from above the right ear to about the apex.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/_/rsrc/1378740112111/hsca/dox/skull-fragmentation.jpg?height=400&width=294)

That's how I see it and how the HSCA depicted it. I don't what the heck you're seeing.

Also I don't see where the hair is being pulled or scalp held up. I think the scalp was generally attached near and below the skull in-shoot until reflection.

   The illustration you have posted does Not show an "opening that goes from above the Right Ear to about the apex". That illustration shows almost the entire TOP of the Skull being blown off.  Please STOP posting that which you Know is Incorrect.   
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 29, 2019, 09:29:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
   The illustration you have posted does Not show an "opening that goes from above the Right Ear to about the apex". That illustration shows almost the entire TOP of the Skull being blown off.  Please STOP posting that which you Know is Incorrect.   

The illustration is meant to match Zapruder frame 312, where the head is leaning to the left and thus somewhat away from the camera film plane. Therefore the opening shown is on the right hemisphere. The hinged skull fragment over the ear (seen to open after Z312) has been drawn closed.

How about you get your eyes examined? Because you've failed here and with the back-of-the-head photos.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Gary Craig on July 03, 2019, 07:45:05 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/JFKBOH.gif)

Is there a ring around the finger in the area I highlighted below? It seems to appear in the latter half of the animation. Maybe it's attached to

the scalp and is used to hold it up.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/JFKBOH.jpg)
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Jim Brunsman on July 05, 2019, 04:08:55 AM
Nobody is bothered by the Parkland and Bethesda witness testimony???? Totally contradicts everything those sham panels concocted. How many are aware of how much power Hoover and Johnson wielded in altering, eliminating, and ignoring vital evidence? Is anyone troubled at how Specter intimidated and led witnesses on numerous occasions when they presented evidence that contradicted his moronic SBT?
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Ray Mitcham on July 05, 2019, 10:58:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nobody is bothered by the Parkland and Bethesda witness testimony???? Totally contradicts everything those sham panels concocted. How many are aware of how much power Hoover and Johnson wielded in altering, eliminating, and ignoring vital evidence?


Jim, all of us who believe in a conspiracy, are bothered by their testimony. It's just that the Feluccas don't believe  professionals who had no reason to lie.

Quote
Is anyone troubled at how Specter intimidated and led witnesses on numerous occasions when they presented evidence that contradicted his moronic SBT?
Only the Warren Commission supporters  believe Specter.
Title: Re: Autopsy Photos and X-rays
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 08, 2019, 07:09:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nobody is bothered by the Parkland and Bethesda witness testimony???? Totally contradicts everything those sham panels concocted. How many are aware of how much power Hoover and Johnson wielded in altering, eliminating, and ignoring vital evidence? Is anyone troubled at how Specter intimidated and led witnesses on numerous occasions when they presented evidence that contradicted his moronic SBT?

Point out where Specter 'intimidated and led' witnesses. Show us where Johnson & Hoover altered, ignored, and eliminated evidence. Show us where witnesses who contradicted the SBT knew what FMJ ammo was designed to do.

Do you know what FMJ ammo was designed to do, and why, Jim?