Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Reasons for Continued Coverup?  (Read 3974 times)

Online Fergus O'Brien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2024, 03:44:05 PM »
Advertisement
More likely the opposite.   Whoever revealed "the truth" would be deemed a hero.  No bureaucrat cares about what happened decades ago.  They are all about promoting themselves.  And no secret can be kept this long in DC.  There was no conspiracy or cover up.  A governmental conspiracy is necessary for UFO and JFK CT believers to explain why they lack evidence to ever prove their nutty theories.  It is because the spooky government or some "men in black" are always showing up to cover it up.


"There was no conspiracy or cover up "

you deny "cover up" even when faced with the deceptions and lies of the very panels who were SUPPOSED to be investigating the crime .the why of it can be debated ,one could argue to avert ww3 for example , not that i ever bought that . but that they did it is not debatable .



JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2024, 03:44:05 PM »


Online Fergus O'Brien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2024, 05:38:45 PM »
Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?

I read it, And I get four inches.

OK, now you're getting four inches. I thought that since you had "bumped" your original post, you might have caught your "guess" and corrected it.

Humes was the only one who used palpation to locate some bump he thought was the EOP. Humes was a teaching pathologist who rarely, if ever, encountered a much-shattered skull with fracture lines covered by thick scalp. Finck argued that Humes' palpation was better than what the photographs showed. Those doctors stick together.

The Top-of-the-Head autopsy photo shows one hole (beside the ruler making it the center of interest) and it's at the Clark Panel's "cowlick" level. You must be seeing another hole at the EOP level ("autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"), which is why I asked you to arrow it.

Certainly not. Where are you getting such stupid information from? You approve some claim that the back wound was to the "right of neck" (which would be in the shoulder ball) and "around the level of the shirt collar" on the back?



LOL. You didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all. McClelland's suggestion that the photo shows a large flap of scalp was being held in place is preposterous. How could McClelland see the very back of Kennedy's head if it's lying on the stretcher and not in view?

I know one critic, Pat Speer, who gets grief because he correctly believes critics are distorting the Parkland descriptions and he thinks the head wound seen at Parkland was the same as photographed at Bethesda.

( Also: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/aguilar/agg20.txt )


    "Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?"

    do try to read properly before you reply . that IS NOT what i said . i said

    "BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "


Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?

YES I SAW WHAT I WROTE , after all i wrote it . i am not responsible if i write the word black and you see the word white .you saw the word left and saw left of the midline or left of the spine , neither of which i said . the wound seen in autopsy photos that LN stand over show NO WOUND on the right side of jfks neck in the lower shirt collar and top of the right shoulder area as depicted by the warren commission and by mr Specter from 1964 to his death .what they do show is a wound below and to the left of that on the back . the wound being just right of the spine . so again you could have read what was posted properly before you jumped to conclusion of left of the midline as you did . i have no problem at all with anyone making an error , we all are capable of that .but even now that you clearly realize i never said what you claimed , you cant bring yourself to say sorry you jumped to a completely incorrect conclusion without first having asked me to clarify .and instead you continue to attack my post .

"I read it, And I get four inches.

OK, now you're getting four inches. I thought that since you had "bumped" your original post, you might have caught your "guess" and corrected it."

i guess you still dont want to take time to read do you ? . lets see what i said again .

1/ they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy

here is my second reply to you on this matter

2/ 100mm or roughly 10 cm equates to roughly 4 inches . i said some 4 to 5 off the cuff as it were , and only from memory as i some times do . while 5 is an accidental over statement 4 inches is perfectly acceptable .

i made it crystal clear that what i posted was OFF THE CUFF or in simple terms a from memory not to be taken as 100% accurate comment hence my saying SOME 4 TO 5 INCHES . if i had intended it to be stated as 100% accurate i would have done as i did in my comment in bold above marked 1/ . so there was no guess because as we have seen 4 inches is in no way inaccurate .as evidenced by the fact that you did not dispute this measurement .

"The Top-of-the-Head autopsy photo shows one hole (beside the ruler making it the center of interest) and it's at the Clark Panel's "cowlick" level. You must be seeing another hole at the EOP level ("autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"), which is why I asked you to arrow it."

ah yes the hole that does not exist YES ?



on the left is the autopsy photo you mention , to its right the Ida dox drawing where a hole was inserted .to which do you refer ? i trust you know the difference between a photo and a drawing so i will assume you refer to the photo on the left. i will let the readers here decide for them selves whether a hole or just a spot of dried blood exists in the autopsy photo in the location you refer to  . and by the way once again i feel i was quite clear in the wording i used , i said the area where a man can have a bald spot .once again via the autopsy photo you mention what i said was shown to not be inaccurate . and NO i am not seeing holes or seeing anything else that does not exist  , you are , but i am not .

"Certainly not. Where are you getting such stupid information from? You approve some claim that the back wound was to the "right of neck" (which would be in the shoulder ball) and "around the level of the shirt collar" on the back?"

i approve a claim ? lol to use your wording "certainly not " , never have and never will . that location came from specter , humes and the warren commission .




"LOL. You didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all. McClelland's suggestion that the photo shows a large flap of scalp was being held in place is preposterous. How could McClelland see the very back of Kennedy's head if it's lying on the stretcher and not in view?"

i did not mention ? i think you will find that in fact I DID .here is what i said AGAIN .

these are the same pathologists (and i use that term lightly ) who endorsed a right of neck entry wound in and around the level of the shirt collar yes / no ? . i am not getting into what anyone endorsed , the autopsy photos that we have dispute them on that .as do the holes on jfks clothing that are on the back , certainly not in the collar areas of his clothing . i know the PBS documentary that you refer to . one of the doctors was mclellend and he maintained his position before and after that documentary , which was that he saw a large wound in the right rear of jfks head .why did you not mention that ? . i do think its important information along with the fact that certain parkland doctors originally said jfk had a right rear head wound or that they saw cerebellum but then reversed and contradicted them selves .and we should give the readers here as much information as we can so that they can decide for them selves on this matter .

so i did mention what you falsely claimed I DID NOT . i just mentioned what you failed to mention which was that the visit was shown in a pbs documentary , and that Mclellend one of the very men YOU CITE still maintained his PREVIOUS position to his death . so one of the doctors (Mclellend ) a doctor you originally CITED here to support your argument and who you have now decided to attack , only an LN would do that lol . and for the record the rear of JFKs head was seen before he ever lay on the examination table at parkland .

Diana Bowron, registered nurse:
Mr. SPECTER. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON. He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

"I know one critic, Pat Speer, who gets grief because he correctly believes critics are distorting the Parkland descriptions and he thinks the head wound seen at Parkland was the same as photographed at Bethesda."

well that is a discussion between you and Mr speer , not between you and i .but just in case the readers here did not grasp what you have just said .on the one hand you attack critics but now because it apparently suits the argument you are now tying to make well you cite a critic lol . for the record my view is that Mr speer is a very honest , hard working and knowledgeable researcher . and that he approaches this case in an honest and open minded fashion . however i will always choose what can be shown to be fact , what can be proven or indeed disproven over beliefs . as i have said you can if you desire discuss with pat his beliefs , but that is not a discussion for me .










Online Fergus O'Brien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2024, 05:54:06 PM »
Please elucidate us by furnishing evidence that Arlen Specter disclosed viewing an autopsy photo which illustrated a wound some inches below and to the LEFT on Kennedy's back. Or is this merely a typographical error or misinterpretation on your part?

'Overwhelming Evidence Oswald Was the Assassin'

A 1966 U.S. News & World Report interview with Arlen Specter, assistant counsel for the Warren Commission.

here is an excerpt from that 1966 interview

"Q: Could we get to this matter of the pictures of the President's body? Have you seen the pictures?

A: The complete set of pictures taken at the autopsy was not made available to me or to the Commission. I was shown one picture of the back of a body which was represented to be the back of the President, although it was not technically authenticated. It showed a hole in the position identified in the autopsy report. To the best of my knowledge, the Commission did not see any photographs or X-rays."

here we see that as early as 1966 specter admitted that he saw an autopsy photo of jfks body .showing the wound in question . that settles the first part of your question , for the other part i respectfully you do as i asked Mr organ and read properly what i said in my original post here and then it would help you to read my replies to Mr organ .

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2024, 05:54:06 PM »


Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2024, 09:23:46 PM »

    "Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?"

    do try to read properly before you reply . that IS NOT what i said . i said

    "BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "


Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?

YES I SAW WHAT I WROTE , after all i wrote it . i am not responsible if i write the word black and you see the word white .you saw the word left and saw left of the midline or left of the spine , neither of which i said . the wound seen in autopsy photos that LN stand over show NO WOUND on the right side of jfks neck in the lower shirt collar and top of the right shoulder area as depicted by the warren commission and by mr Specter from 1964 to his death .what they do show is a wound below and to the left of that on the back . the wound being just right of the spine . so again you could have read what was posted properly before you jumped to conclusion of left of the midline as you did . i have no problem at all with anyone making an error , we all are capable of that .but even now that you clearly realize i never said what you claimed , you cant bring yourself to say sorry you jumped to a completely incorrect conclusion without first having asked me to clarify .and instead you continue to attack my post .

You originally only provided:
    "BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that
     showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "

Not much to go on, considering you (finally) coughed up a paragraph of explanation. To your original explanation, I asked: "Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?" Is this not seeking clarification?

LNers have long acknowledged the Ryberg drawings are inaccurate and the HSCA depiction of the back wound (based on the autopsy photographs) differs from than of the WC exhibit. Ryberg never saw the autopsy photos. Do you not think the artist would have placed the back wound more accurately if he had seen this ...



Why are you relying on 1964 visuals not drawn from the autopsy photos when there are more accurate visuals drawn from the autopsy photos?

Going back to your earlier vague statement:

    "IE Specter and his SBT starting with an entry wound location on the right side (of the rear )
     of JFKs neck that he knew was a lie . he knew it was a lie because BY HIS OWN ADMISSION
     he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several
     inches below and to the left ON THE BACK"

There is no indication there that you are referring to a specific WC exhibit.

Quote
"I read it, And I get four inches.

OK, now you're getting four inches. I thought that since you had "bumped" your original post, you might have caught your "guess" and corrected it."

i guess you still dont want to take time to read do you ? . lets see what i said again .

1/ they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy

here is my second reply to you on this matter

2/ 100mm or roughly 10 cm equates to roughly 4 inches . i said some 4 to 5 off the cuff as it were , and only from memory as i some times do . while 5 is an accidental over statement 4 inches is perfectly acceptable .

i made it crystal clear that what i posted was OFF THE CUFF or in simple terms a from memory not to be taken as 100% accurate comment hence my saying SOME 4 TO 5 INCHES . if i had intended it to be stated as 100% accurate i would have done as i did in my comment in bold above marked 1/ . so there was no guess because as we have seen 4 inches is in no way inaccurate .as evidenced by the fact that you did not dispute this measurement .

You wrote "clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position", and by position you meant the EOP wound. I just wanted to make clear that the Clark Panel located the wound about four inches above the EOP, not 4-to-5 inches above Humes' skull entry.

Quote
"The Top-of-the-Head autopsy photo shows one hole (beside the ruler making it the center of interest) and it's at the Clark Panel's "cowlick" level. You must be seeing another hole at the EOP level ("autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"), which is why I asked you to arrow it."

ah yes the hole that does not exist YES ?



on the left is the autopsy photo you mention , to its right the Ida dox drawing where a hole was inserted .to which do you refer ?

You think Ida Dox just made up a bullet wound?



Quote
i trust you know the difference between a photo and a drawing so i will assume you refer to the photo on the left.



You think Ida Dox drew her drawing from the autopsy photo on the left? You can't see that your graphic has different areas circled?

Quote
i will let the readers here decide for them selves whether a hole or just a spot of dried blood exists in the autopsy photo in the location you refer to  . and by the way once again i feel i was quite clear in the wording i used , i said the area where a man can have a bald spot .once again via the autopsy photo you mention what i said was shown to not be inaccurate . and NO i am not seeing holes or seeing anything else that does not exist  , you are , but i am not .

The only entry wound I see in the Back-of-the-Head photos and Dox's drawing of one of those is the Clark Panel's "cowlick" wound. The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel that this photo shows an entry wound some four inches above the EOP. And that there is nothing but intact scalp between it and the EOP. Humes was wrong.

Now you claimed "autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up". So please arrow in the Back-of-the-Head Photo where you contend this mythical EOP-area entry wound is. I believe you have some idea the EOP "would roughly be at the level of the top of ones ears".



On a head that's fully-vertical, the EOP is about level with the ear canal opening and where the skull turns inward (or away from the back of the neck). But the Back-of-the-Head Photos shows Kennedy's head tilted backwards somewhat. Also, where the "cowlick" wound is is not where the skull turns inward. If you follow the ruler down some distance, you will see where the skull turns inward.

Quote
"Certainly not. Where are you getting such stupid information from? You approve some claim that the back wound was to the "right of neck" (which would be in the shoulder ball) and "around the level of the shirt collar" on the back?"

i approve a claim ? lol to use your wording "certainly not " , never have and never will . that location came from specter , humes and the warren commission .



"LOL. You didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all. McClelland's suggestion that the photo shows a large flap of scalp was being held in place is preposterous. How could McClelland see the very back of Kennedy's head if it's lying on the stretcher and not in view?"

i did not mention ? i think you will find that in fact I DID .here is what i said AGAIN .

these are the same pathologists (and i use that term lightly ) who endorsed a right of neck entry wound in and around the level of the shirt collar yes / no ? . i am not getting into what anyone endorsed , the autopsy photos that we have dispute them on that .as do the holes on jfks clothing that are on the back , certainly not in the collar areas of his clothing . i know the PBS documentary that you refer to . one of the doctors was mclellend and he maintained his position before and after that documentary , which was that he saw a large wound in the right rear of jfks head .why did you not mention that ? . i do think its important information along with the fact that certain parkland doctors originally said jfk had a right rear head wound or that they saw cerebellum but then reversed and contradicted them selves .and we should give the readers here as much information as we can so that they can decide for them selves on this matter .

When I said "you didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all", it was in reference to your post prior to when I first mentioned the visit.

Quote
so i did mention what you falsely claimed I DID NOT . i just mentioned what you failed to mention which was that the visit was shown in a pbs documentary , and that Mclellend one of the very men YOU CITE still maintained his PREVIOUS position to his death . so one of the doctors (Mclellend ) a doctor you originally CITED here to support your argument and who you have now decided to attack , only an LN would do that lol . and for the record the rear of JFKs head was seen before he ever lay on the examination table at parkland .

Diana Bowron, registered nurse:
Mr. SPECTER. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON. He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

I don't think Kennedy was lying face down in the limousine, so Bowron saw the gaping head wound that was on the right-side, not an opening exclusive to the very rear. Bowron said "President Kennedy was lying with his head slumped in her lap. She was cradling his head." I don't think she would have held her husband face-down.

Quote
"I know one critic, Pat Speer, who gets grief because he correctly believes critics are distorting the Parkland descriptions and he thinks the head wound seen at Parkland was the same as photographed at Bethesda."

well that is a discussion between you and Mr speer , not between you and i .but just in case the readers here did not grasp what you have just said .on the one hand you attack critics but now because it apparently suits the argument you are now tying to make well you cite a critic lol . for the record my view is that Mr speer is a very honest , hard working and knowledgeable researcher . and that he approaches this case in an honest and open minded fashion . however i will always choose what can be shown to be fact , what can be proven or indeed disproven over beliefs . as i have said you can if you desire discuss with pat his beliefs , but that is not a discussion for me .

Speer, IMO, did in-depth work on the back-of-the-head claims and defends his conclusions competently, so his opinions on this have merit for me. ( Also: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/aguilar/agg20.txt )
« Last Edit: March 23, 2024, 09:30:43 PM by Jerry Organ »

Online Fergus O'Brien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2024, 02:16:50 PM »
Okay, Fergus, thanks for clearing that up. That is the first time I have seen that article. The literature in the case is so extensive that it is challenging to read everything.

'Overwhelming Evidence Oswald Was the Assassin'

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/overwhelming-evidence-oswald-was-the-assassin

Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20240323184144/https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/overwhelming-evidence-oswald-was-the-assassin

no problem Paul . my apologies i see i forgot to add the link to my post . but you added it now so thank you .

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2024, 02:16:50 PM »


Online Fergus O'Brien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
Re: Reasons for Continued Coverup?
« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2024, 04:48:21 PM »
You originally only provided:
    "BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that
     showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "

Not much to go on, considering you (finally) coughed up a paragraph of explanation. To your original explanation, I asked: "Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?" Is this not seeking clarification?

LNers have long acknowledged the Ryberg drawings are inaccurate and the HSCA depiction of the back wound (based on the autopsy photographs) differs from than of the WC exhibit. Ryberg never saw the autopsy photos. Do you not think the artist would have placed the back wound more accurately if he had seen this ...



Why are you relying on 1964 visuals not drawn from the autopsy photos when there are more accurate visuals drawn from the autopsy photos?

Going back to your earlier vague statement:

    "IE Specter and his SBT starting with an entry wound location on the right side (of the rear )
     of JFKs neck that he knew was a lie . he knew it was a lie because BY HIS OWN ADMISSION
     he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several
     inches below and to the left ON THE BACK"

There is no indication there that you are referring to a specific WC exhibit.

You wrote "clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position", and by position you meant the EOP wound. I just wanted to make clear that the Clark Panel located the wound about four inches above the EOP, not 4-to-5 inches above Humes' skull entry.

You think Ida Dox just made up a bullet wound?





You think Ida Dox drew her drawing from the autopsy photo on the left? You can't see that your graphic has different areas circled?

The only entry wound I see in the Back-of-the-Head photos and Dox's drawing of one of those is the Clark Panel's "cowlick" wound. The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel that this photo shows an entry wound some four inches above the EOP. And that there is nothing but intact scalp between it and the EOP. Humes was wrong.

Now you claimed "autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up". So please arrow in the Back-of-the-Head Photo where you contend this mythical EOP-area entry wound is. I believe you have some idea the EOP "would roughly be at the level of the top of ones ears".



On a head that's fully-vertical, the EOP is about level with the ear canal opening and where the skull turns inward (or away from the back of the neck). But the Back-of-the-Head Photos shows Kennedy's head tilted backwards somewhat. Also, where the "cowlick" wound is is not where the skull turns inward. If you follow the ruler down some distance, you will see where the skull turns inward.

When I said "you didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all", it was in reference to your post prior to when I first mentioned the visit.

I don't think Kennedy was lying face down in the limousine, so Bowron saw the gaping head wound that was on the right-side, not an opening exclusive to the very rear. Bowron said "President Kennedy was lying with his head slumped in her lap. She was cradling his head." I don't think she would have held her husband face-down.

Speer, IMO, did in-depth work on the back-of-the-head claims and defends his conclusions competently, so his opinions on this have merit for me. ( Also: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/aguilar/agg20.txt )

"You originally only provided:
    "BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that
     showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "

Not much to go on, considering you (finally) coughed up a paragraph of explanation. To your original explanation, I asked: "Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?" Is this not seeking clarification? "

well yes you sought clarification however you first jumped to a conclusion pretty much that i was asserting a wound to be in a location that we both know it never was , and i never said what you were well insinuating that i said . also the manner of your post was taken by me to be shall we say less than friendly .perhaps you did not intend it to appear that way , but none the less it is how it appeared to me .and you still come across as speaking sharply to me .so in that sense i am less inclined to reply in a civil tone . for example you now say I HAVE COUGHED UP which i again (rightly or wrongly ) take as a less than friendly tone . all be it my tone is still and usually reasonably civil . in regards my to the left comment well i thought (perhaps wrongly ) that my wording would be taken as it was meant , menaing simply just TO THE LEFT . and not to the left of any structure etc as i never  mentioned any structure , bone etc . i have as you have noticed clarified that now .

"LNers have long acknowledged the Ryberg drawings are inaccurate"

indeed however Mr rydberg drew what Humes told him to draw , Mr rydberg is not at fault here . he never saw either JFKs body nor any autopsy photos . and to this day more often than not when we see official warren commission supporting documentaries that show a bullet trajectory they show a bullet entering at the Rydberg location . this despite and by even your own admission that drawing is inaccurate . so this is still valid in such a discussion .specter as we know maintained a NECK entry wound every time he spoke , humes did not speak nearly as much but ive seen him on film pointing to roughly the same location as the Rydberg drawing .this is the location where specter and his pointer (seen in a commission photo exhibit ) had the trajectory passing through a jfk stand in and then onto a connally stand in , which is the area between the right of the neck and the top of the right shoulder . DESPITE a chalk mark several inches below on the agents coat showing the correct entry location . this was done to further specters theory that the bullet entered high and exited low , something his single bullet theory relies upon . so while you are correct that the location of the entry wound on the right fo neck is wrong i post that picture (Rydberg ) because those pushing the lone nut version of events such as tv channels / documentaries still show a bullet / trajectory line passing through the Rydberg area .again Rydberg is not at fault he did no wrong , he followed Humes instruction . and Humes most certainly knew better .

"the HSCA depiction of the back wound (based on the autopsy photographs) differs from than of the WC exhibit"

yes this is true .the Dox drawing of the back wound is far more accurate , because clearly Dox had access to autopsy photos , because the HSCA had them or atleast copies .Rydberg never did .and let us not fool our selves , we now know that specter admitted he saw an autopsy photo . one that we now know shows a BACK wound below shoulder level . he knew that at the very least as early as 1966 , i believe he knew in 1964 .his assertion (well he said as far as he was aware if i am remembering correctly ) that the commission had no access to autopsy photos is wrong or false depending on how much one decides they can trust Specter . i have zero trust of that man .he knew in 1966 that no one else had access to autopsy photos outside the powers that be , and they were not going to release them and still have not 60 years later .so he could say they showed anything that he desired to claim they showed and no one could prove him wrong . it would be another decade plus before researchers got their hands on the photos . but still very few saw them . in the internet age now anyone can see them and see the wounds and see the deception .in the executive sessions of january 1964 (if memory serves me ) i believe it was Rankin who referred to the back  and throat wounds and mentioned that the photo show a lower entry position . this could not be said without him having the autopsy photos or atleast the back photos at his disposal .so certain people on that commission did indeed have access to autopsy photos .to my knowledge warren said he saw atleast one all be it i would have to go back and check my info on that , specter certainly saw one at some point pre 1966 by his own admission .i believe but of course cant prove it that he saw it in 1964 while at the commission . and the sessions tell us others had access also .

"Why are you relying on 1964 visuals not drawn from the autopsy photos when there are more accurate visuals drawn from the autopsy photos?"

i am in no way relying on this .

"There is no indication there that you are referring to a specific WC exhibit."

i am referring to things i have already mentioned above / earlier . Specter has been noted in main saying NECK NECK NECK NECK , you mentioned pat speer earlier , well you can view his work to verify that .he most certainly knew no later than 1966 that there was no entry wound on the neck but that it was on the BACK and below shoulder level .even if he never had access to any autopsy photos at any time (we know he did ) he had JFKs shirt and jacket (even allowing for a little jacket bunching ) showing holes not on the neck IE collar area but on the BACK below shoulder level .atleast one other on the commission admitted seeing an autopsy photo in 1964 showing a wound pretty much as i describe just above .and not on the neck as Specter would maintain for life .when i speak above in your quote saying "that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK" i am referring to autopsy photos .and what can be seen in them .

"You wrote "clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position", and by position you meant the EOP wound. I just wanted to make clear that the Clark Panel located the wound about four inches above the EOP, not 4-to-5 inches above Humes' skull entry."

i have already stated that "some 4 to 5 inches " was off the cuff as it were and i posted a far more accurate measurement of in and around 4 inches .

"You think Ida Dox just made up a bullet wound?"

only Dox can answer such a question , for me to do so would be mere speculation / theory and i do not do that .all be it a little speculation in my view has its place . what i do know is Dox drew from an autopsy photo of the head , you can argue which one if you like .we dont have access to them all . but i provided an autopsy photo showing the exact location on the rear of jfks head with the dox drawing along side it , however both are small , but larger versions can be found online .and no photo available that i am aware of shows a neat bullet entry hole where the HSCA using Dox drawing would claim a wound existed .all that is there is a spot of blood that even has hairs in it .

"You think Ida Dox drew her drawing from the autopsy photo on the left? You can't see that your graphic has different areas circled? "

Dox drew A DRAWING from A AUTOPSY PHOTO of the head . i can only provide those photos that are available to us , the powers that be 60 years later have made NO PHOTOS available .never the less you have an official autopsy photo (unless you desire to dispute its authenticity ?  ) clearly showing the area of JFKs head in question and which shows that there was no bullet hole in the area in question .

"The only entry wound I see in the Back-of-the-Head photos and Dox's drawing of one of those is the Clark Panel's "cowlick" wound. The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel that this photo shows an entry wound some four inches above the EOP."

the HSCA also said in their report that ALL BETHESDA witnesses contradicted the parkland witnesses in regards jfks wounds , we know that to not be true .you however can feel free to believe what ever these various panels told you was so , i am talking about what we can all see or NOT SEE with our own eyes .

"I don't think Kennedy was lying face down in the limousine, so Bowron saw the gaping head wound that was on the right-side, not an opening exclusive to the very rear. Bowron said "President Kennedy was lying with his head slumped in her lap. She was cradling his head." I don't think she would have held her husband face-down."

once again you have seen what a person said IN BLACK AND WHITE and you choose to interpret it only in a manner that suits you . let us look again at what bowron said .

Diana Bowron, registered nurse:
Mr. SPECTER. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON. He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

at NO POINT ABOVE did bowron ever say FACE DOWN . she said laying across . given that JFK slid leftwards and down onto the rear seat of the limo as Jackie jumped up on the trunk it is a reasonable assertion that when she sat back down that she had JFKs head laying on her lap left ear down as it were . NOT FACE DOWN which would be silly , and to be fair to you it seems you agree with me on this  .but YET AGAIN we have an LN who would attempt to tell intelligent people that a qualified and experienced nurse (bowron ) SIMPLY CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO DETERMINE if she was looking at the right side , left side , forehead , top , or BACK of a patients head .just as we are told that NEUROSURGEONS likewise cannot be relied upon . with the greatest of respect i find that laughable .

"Speer, IMO, did in-depth work on the back-of-the-head claims and defends his conclusions competently, so his opinions on this have merit for me."

indeed , and as i said he is an honest and extremely diligent and very knowledgeable researcher , and i admire his work greatly .but if you agree or indeed disagree with Mr speers opinions that is a matter between you and him . and yes there is a great deal of competency and merit in his work .i admire his work .but no researcher is infallible no matter if they be LN or CT .