Released File Shows J. Edgar Hoover Acknowledged Large Rear Head Wound

[Michael T. Griffith]

Saundra Spencer [didn't develop autopsy photos]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-the-autopsy-photographs-of-jfk-part-two

Yes, she did. Fred's whole argument, as it usually does when he deals with witnesses whose accounts he can't accept, boils down to claiming that Spencer either lied about developing autopsy photos or only imagined she did.

There were no other photographers. None that were legitimate anyway.

Wrong. The family of White House photographer Robert Knudsen confirmed that there was a second set of autopsy photos, and that they showed wounds that are not seen in the official autopsy pictures. Several other autopsy witnesses described the taking of photos that are not in the official collection.

The X-Ray techs and the radiologist all confirmed that the X-Rays in the National Archives are authentic.

You must know this is a misleading claim, to put it mildly. Both of the x-ray techs changed their stories. Custer was all over the place about the x-rays. At one point in his ARRB interview, Custer raised serious questions about the x-rays. Reed was clearly lying for much of his ARRB interview, not to mention that he proved he didn't even know how to read an x-ray.

The radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, told one of the x-ray techs to take x-rays of skull fragments with bullet fragments taped to them, supposedly for a bust of JFK. Gee, what was going on with that? Why would anyone need such x-rays for a bust of JFK?

Incidentally, Ebersole, perhaps not realizing the implications of what he was saying, also stated that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone. He also said that the large head wound was in the back of the skull. Were you aware of these facts?

From Pat Speer over on the ED forum:

Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's, when he contacted Lifton. Lifton failed to buy into it, so Livingston then contacted Livingstone. The bottom line is that Livingston claimed the small size of the throat wound was discussed by a nurse on the radio, and that this led him to call Humes. The problem is that those studying the news footage and broadcasts have found no record of such an interview. There's also this. Livingston claimed he was friends with the journalist Richard Dudman, and that Dudman could vouch for him. Well, I contacted Dudman and he verified that he'd known Livingston for decades, and that Livingston had talked to him more than once about the Kennedy assassination. But, get this, he had no recollection of Livingston ever claiming he'd talked to Humes, or some such thing. Now, Dudman was quite an old man at this time, so I chose to not come forward with this for fear Fetzer and others would proceed to attack him. (Fetzer is the main proponent of Livingston's credibility on this issue.) In any event, I never felt the need for confronting Fetzer on this seeing as Fetzer discredited Livingston all by himself when he disavowed the transcript of Livingston's testimony in the Crenshaw case (testimony arranged by Fetzer and put into the record by Doug Horne). You see, I actually read the transcript and spotted some clear problems with it. The one thing that comes to mind is that Livingston said he'd decided to come forward in order to 'save the world". Yikes! A retired man in his seventies who comes forward with a bizarre story without any back-up in order to save the world, and is driven to his court testimony by Dr. James Fetzer, the very same Fetzer who believes the airplanes filmed crashing into the twin towers were holograms, and that Paul McCartney is an imposter impersonating the original Paul McCartney.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22980-dr-humes-knew-about-the-throat-wound-the-day-of-the-autopsy

You guys love to trot out Pat Speer when it comes to evidence of alteration and fabrication. Speer reflexively and lamely rejects all research and accounts that indicate the faking or alteration of evidence.

Now, tell me, since Speer doesn't, what would be so bizarre about the director of two NIH institutes calling Humes to advise him of the throat wound and to recommend how to deal with it? Huh? Why is that a "bizarre story"? Why would Dr. Livingston have fabricated the story? He was quite lucid when he came forward with his account. Lots of other witnesses waited many years before coming forward with their information. The enormous impact of Oliver Stone's movie JFK caused a number of witnesses to decide that they should come forward with what they knew.

Speer has wrenched the "save the world" statement out of context to impugn Livingston's motives. I bet money you haven't read Livingston's own words about his disclosure.

A little bit more info about Dr. Livingston: He obtained his M. D. from Stanford Medical School. During the Second World War he served in the Pacific and took part in the invasion of Okinawa. In 1946 he began work at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 1952 President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Livingston as the Scientific Director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases. He also held the post under President John F. Kennedy. In 1964 Livingston later founded the first ever department of Neurosciences at UCSD.In the 1970s, Livingston was instrumental in developing some of the first 3-D images of the human brain. Later he was awarded a major grant to develop a prototype computer system to map the brain in three dimensions in microscopic detail.

But according to you guys and Speer, Dr. Livingston just made up his account of telling Humes about the throat wound in order to "save the world."

Many people viewed James Fetzer as credible until he began to embrace 9/11 Truther claims. At the time when Livingston briefly associated with Fetzer on the JFK case, he had no idea that Fetzer would later embrace the 9/11 Truther craziness. I, myself, worked with Fetzer on the JFK case in the late 1990s, but I discontinued all association with him when he endorsed the 9/11 Truther nuttiness. Lots of other researchers ditched Fetzer like a hot potato when he embraced the 9/11 Truther trash. So just because Dr. Livingston briefly associated with Fetzer does not discredit his account of speaking with Humes before the autopsy. 

Post link(s) to those specific releases.

From the HSCA testimony of Tom Robinson;

Purdy: Specifically, when you say the body, you saw the back,I want to know specifically if either you know there was not a wound from the head down to the waist anywhere on the back, neck or whatever, or that the autopsy work may have either obliterated it or made it not evident
to you that there was such a wound?

Robinson: It miqht have done that, there was - . . but the back itself, there was no wound there, no.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md63.pdf

This is understandable, since Robinson was not the one who worked on the back wound. He helped with the skull reconstruction. BTW, Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who helped wash JFK's body, clean his head wound, and pack the head wound with gauze, did not notice the back wound either. Nor did the two other Parkland nurses who prepared the body for the casket. So it's not surprising that Robinson did not notice the wound either.

Contrary to my earlier statement, Robinson did not say the back wound was several inches below the throat wound.

Using the posterior autopsy view as a reference, place a mark on the lateral view at the level that you believe the non-fatal entry wound on Kennedy was.

O'Neill: I specifically do not recall those-I mean, being that clean or that fixed up. To me, it looks like these pictures have been- But if they’ve been identified-positively identified, then, de facto.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Oneill_9-12-97.pdf

Here, too, you must know this is misleading. You ignore the fact that O'Neill plainly stated the large wound was in the back of the head, and that he even diagrammed the wound. You also ignore the fact that he said the back-of-head photo looked like it had been "doctored."

The autopsy photos have not been positively authenticated, not even close. The autopsy brain photos are clearly fake, since they cannot be of JFK's brain, and since they are completetly contradicted by the skull x-rays, which show substantial loss of brain in the right-frontal region. The autopsy photos that show the back of the head don't even show a readily apparent entry wound--they show no defect of any kind, yet Dr. Boswell diagrammed for the ARRB that the large head wound extended well into the rear of the skull, and the autopsy report says part of the exit wound was in the occipital bone. No such wound is seen in the extant autopsy photos that show the back of the head.

You need to read Pat Speer's chapters on the X-Rays.

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter18x-rayspecs

Speer's research on the x-rays is amateurish and awful. See my dialogues with him on the x-rays in the Education Forum. His explanations for the 6.5 mm object are strained and implausible. His explanation for the unnatural white patch is demonstrably false, as Dr. David Mantik has proved, and as anyone can see by looking at the lateral x-rays. I discuss Speer's errant explanations in A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed JFK.

Name the neuroscientist and forensic pathologist who have established that optical density (OD) measurements prove that the autopsy x-rays contain undeniable evidence of alteration.

You don't know??? Why are you even posting in this forum if you don't know such basic, important information that has been available for many years now? The neuroscientist is Dr. Michael Chesser, who did his own OD measurements after Dr. Mantik did his. The forensic pathologist was Dr. Cyril Wecht, who reviewed Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser's independent OD measurements and concluded they were compelling. A number of other medical experts have also endorsed Dr. Mantik's OD research.