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 autopsyhere 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 .
