EOP Back of Head Entrance Wound

First time posting here.

For me, the EOP wound is the clencher for a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza.

How could anybody deny it? Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the
brain ahd already been removed, and he always said that he could still see
the crater unmolested within the intact skull. The area of skull with the
depressed cowlick fracture would have had to be removed to facilitate
removal of the brain. The area of skull around the large defect was so
brittle that pieces became separated with virtually no sawing. How could
Dr. Finck examine a crater in the skull which didn't even exist? He never
said he only examined it from previously-removed skull fragments that were
subsequently pieced together. Unless anybody can refute that notion, I
think that's an easy debunking of the cowlick entry theory.

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-07 19:12:47 UTC

Post by b***@gmail.com
First time posting here.
For me, the EOP wound is the clencher for a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza.
How could anybody deny it? Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the
brain ahd already been removed, and he always said that he could still see
the crater unmolested within the intact skull. The area of skull with the

WHat crater? WTF are you talking about?

Post by b***@gmail.com
depressed cowlick fracture would have had to be removed to facilitate
removal of the brain. The area of skull around the large defect was so

Nope. And the skull fell apart when they peeled back the scalp.

Post by b***@gmail.com
brittle that pieces became separated with virtually no sawing. How could
Dr. Finck examine a crater in the skull which didn't even exist? He never
said he only examined it from previously-removed skull fragments that were
subsequently pieced together. Unless anybody can refute that notion, I
think that's an easy debunking of the cowlick entry theory.

You have to remember why the cowlick theory was invented. Baden and his
crew tried to work the angle back to the sniper's nest and it didn't work
for the EOP entrance so he had to move it up to the cowlick area to get
the correct downward angle.

It's like starting with a conclusion and then making up data to support
that conclusion.

Beyond Wikipedia

2017-06-09 20:17:25 UTC

Wowza. So this is my first interaction on this bulletin board.

Let me rephrase.

Dr. Finck always said that the entry hole was still in the visible skull
after the brain had already been removed.

How do you remove the brain without separating the part of the skull where
the X-ray cowlick fracture? And consider that the doctors always said that
the area of skull around the large defect was so brittle that pieces just
naturally chipped off. Would not the cowlick fracture fall off in the
process of enlarging the skull cavity to facilitate the removal of the
brain?

This indicates that the entry hole in the back of the skull was low, in
it's original EOP location, and not 4 inches above. This is a main reason
why I think the cowlick entry theory is ridiculous. Let alone how nobody
from the autopsy ever agreed to it. Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck,
photographer John Stringer, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Lt.
Richard Lipsey, FBI agent Francis X. O'Neil, and Chief Petty Officer
Charles Boyers all support a lower location for the small head wound.

mainframetech

2017-06-10 17:08:20 UTC

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Wowza. So this is my first interaction on this bulletin board.
Let me rephrase.
Dr. Finck always said that the entry hole was still in the visible skull
after the brain had already been removed.
How do you remove the brain without separating the part of the skull where
the X-ray cowlick fracture? And consider that the doctors always said that
the area of skull around the large defect was so brittle that pieces just
naturally chipped off. Would not the cowlick fracture fall off in the
process of enlarging the skull cavity to facilitate the removal of the
brain?
This indicates that the entry hole in the back of the skull was low, in
it's original EOP location, and not 4 inches above. This is a main reason
why I think the cowlick entry theory is ridiculous. Let alone how nobody
from the autopsy ever agreed to it. Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck,
photographer John Stringer, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Lt.
Richard Lipsey, FBI agent Francis X. O'Neil, and Chief Petty Officer
Charles Boyers all support a lower location for the small head wound.

Here is a Ida Dox drawing of the photo of the BOH 'leaked' from the
autopsy:

Loading Image...

That drawing was given to one of the medical panels with the excuse
that the family didn't want anyone to view the real autopsy photos. Can
you find the bullet hole?

Now here's the photo she copied to make the drawing:

Loading Image...

Find the bullet hole. And the red spot is NOT it. Humes stated that
the red spot was nothing, or maybe a blood spot.

It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

Chris

John McAdams

2017-06-10 17:12:56 UTC

Here is a Ida Dox drawing of the photo of the BOH 'leaked' from the
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TCdfw9dZX-I/AAAAAAAAEcg/DsMiY_zlogQ/s400/Ida+Dox+Drawing.jpg
That drawing was given to one of the medical panels with the excuse
that the family didn't want anyone to view the real autopsy photos. Can
you find the bullet hole?
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Find the bullet hole. And the red spot is NOT it. Humes stated that
the red spot was nothing, or maybe a blood spot.

Oh! Humes said that, did he?

I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?

You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?

And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?

While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Beyond Wikipedia

2017-06-11 13:24:24 UTC

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I see you are of the opinion that Humes just lied about the entry wound
being lower because he was trying to cover his own mistake. If that is
true, then why did he think the hairline dark spot with the white matter
was an entry wound, even saying "it was BELOW the EOP", when he and Humes
were interviewed by the HSCA?

Humes was almost certainly going by his memory, and this little mistake
would be expected with 15 years of time passed and also he was shown a
crappy quality photograph (or was he only shown the Dox drawing?). This
also shows that he would rather tend to think the wound was BELOW the EOP
rather than FOUR INCHES above.

And say what you want about the red spot, it will always look
two-dimensional. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that it was a scalp
defect related to the large head wound. I tend to think the red spot was
that.

John McAdams

2017-06-11 13:29:54 UTC

On 11 Jun 2017 09:24:24 -0400, Beyond Wikipedia

Post by mainframetech
Here is a Ida Dox drawing of the photo of the BOH 'leaked' from the
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TCdfw9dZX-I/AAAAAAAAEcg/DsMiY_zlogQ/s400/Ida+Dox+Drawing.jpg
That drawing was given to one of the medical panels with the excuse
that the family didn't want anyone to view the real autopsy photos. Can
you find the bullet hole?
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm433/JFKAUTOPSYPHOTOS/JFKcolor_boh_autopsy_photo.jpg
Find the bullet hole. And the red spot is NOT it. Humes stated that
the red spot was nothing, or maybe a blood spot.

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.

I see you are of the opinion that Humes just lied about the entry wound
being lower because he was trying to cover his own mistake.

Refusing to admit his mistake.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
If that is
true, then why did he think the hairline dark spot with the white matter
was an entry wound, even saying "it was BELOW the EOP", when he and Humes
were interviewed by the HSCA?

Because he may have thought that. And clearly, he *wanted* an
entrance wound consistent with what he had written in the AR, and
didn't want to admit a mistake.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Humes was almost certainly going by his memory, and this little mistake
would be expected with 15 years of time passed and also he was shown a
crappy quality photograph (or was he only shown the Dox drawing?). This
also shows that he would rather tend to think the wound was BELOW the EOP
rather than FOUR INCHES above.

He didn't want to admit he screwed up.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
And say what you want about the red spot, it will always look
two-dimensional.

Not if you have a stereo pair of the camera original color
transparencies.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that it was a scalp
defect related to the large head wound. I tend to think the red spot was
that.

You also need to consider that the AP x-rays shows nasty fractures
radiating from a wound near the cowlick.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Beyond Wikipedia

2017-06-11 23:32:02 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 11 Jun 2017 09:24:24 -0400, Beyond Wikipedia

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.

I see you are of the opinion that Humes just lied about the entry wound
being lower because he was trying to cover his own mistake.

Refusing to admit his mistake.

Because he may have thought that. And clearly, he *wanted* an
entrance wound consistent with what he had written in the AR, and
didn't want to admit a mistake.

He didn't want to admit he screwed up.

Well Humes allowed himself to be COERCED by the HSCA into lying under oath
that he thought the cowlick entry theory was true.

And don't you realize that no other witness to the small head wound
supports a higher location?

Dr. James Humes, Dr. Thorton Boswell, Dr. Pierre Finck, photographer John
Stringer, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Lt. Richard Lipsey, FBI
agent Francis X. O'Neil, Chief Petty Officer Charles Boyers all made
statements supporting a lower wound.

What's with the language used by these witnesses? The EOP is a specific
landmark in the occipital bone, and now you're telling me it was in the
parietal bone? The "LOW" portion of the head? If the hypothetical cowlick
entry theory is true, who would say it was "low" in the head? Richard
Lipsey even remembered the doctors referring to the wound as being in the
"upper neck"!

And did you forget what I posted above about the brain removal problem?
I've argued a lot about that point and every LN is stumped. You can't
remove the brain without also removing the area of the skull with the
depressed cowlick fracture, and yet Dr. Finck always said he could see the
the entry hole in the empty cranium. And the HSCA's interpretation of the
skull photographs make no sense when considering that.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
And say what you want about the red spot, it will always look
two-dimensional.

Not if you have a stereo pair of the camera original color
transparencies.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that it was a scalp
defect related to the large head wound. I tend to think the red spot was
that.

You also need to consider that the AP x-rays shows nasty fractures
radiating from a wound near the cowlick.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

About a dozen experts agree with the cowlick entry wound, but another
dozen or so looked at the X-rays and photographs and either didn't agree
or couldn't identify any particular entry wound. Their names are Dr. John
Ebersole, Dr. Fred Hodges, Dr. Robert McMeekin, Dr. Alfred Olivier, Dr.
Norman Chase, Dr. G.M. McDonnel, Dr. David O. Davis, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker,
Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Robert Kirschner, Dr. David Mantik, and Dr.
Peter Cummings.

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-12 16:48:53 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 11 Jun 2017 09:24:24 -0400, Beyond Wikipedia

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.

I see you are of the opinion that Humes just lied about the entry wound
being lower because he was trying to cover his own mistake.

Refusing to admit his mistake.

Because he may have thought that. And clearly, he *wanted* an
entrance wound consistent with what he had written in the AR, and
didn't want to admit a mistake.

He didn't want to admit he screwed up.

Well Humes allowed himself to be COERCED by the HSCA into lying under oath
that he thought the cowlick entry theory was true.

Not exactly. I think they call it acquiesced. I think he later recanted
and insisted that he had been right in 1963.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
And don't you realize that no other witness to the small head wound
supports a higher location?

Could be that Baden made it up from his imagination. Or maybe the Clark
Panel lied because the angles didn't line up.
I think they needed a trajectory closer to the trail of fragments. But I
forget who originated it.
I do know they wanted the trajectory to point back to the sniper's nest
so they had to keep lying about the entrance AND exit wounds.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Dr. James Humes, Dr. Thorton Boswell, Dr. Pierre Finck, photographer John
Stringer, Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Lt. Richard Lipsey, FBI
agent Francis X. O'Neil, Chief Petty Officer Charles Boyers all made
statements supporting a lower wound.
What's with the language used by these witnesses? The EOP is a specific
landmark in the occipital bone, and now you're telling me it was in the
parietal bone? The "LOW" portion of the head? If the hypothetical cowlick
entry theory is true, who would say it was "low" in the head? Richard

I think there was a little cover-up attempt because no occipital bone
found intact and they kept moving the wound around. Also, memories fade.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Lipsey even remembered the doctors referring to the wound as being in the
"upper neck"!

Two different wounds. They at first did not know about the back wound.

They thought the bullet hit just under the EOP and exited the throat.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
And did you forget what I posted above about the brain removal problem?
I've argued a lot about that point and every LN is stumped. You can't
remove the brain without also removing the area of the skull with the

Again, pay attention. Sibert and O'Neill were there and observed the
autopsy. The skull fell apart when they peeled back the scalp.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
depressed cowlick fracture, and yet Dr. Finck always said he could see the
the entry hole in the empty cranium. And the HSCA's interpretation of the
skull photographs make no sense when considering that.

It makes sense when you know that the second HSCA was a cover-up to
rubber stamp the WC.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
And say what you want about the red spot, it will always look
two-dimensional.

Not if you have a stereo pair of the camera original color
transparencies.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that it was a scalp
defect related to the large head wound. I tend to think the red spot was
that.

You also need to consider that the AP x-rays shows nasty fractures
radiating from a wound near the cowlick.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

And you can prove that they all saw the original autopsy photos at the
National Archives?

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-12 00:31:46 UTC

Post by John McAdams
On 11 Jun 2017 09:24:24 -0400, Beyond Wikipedia

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.

I see you are of the opinion that Humes just lied about the entry wound
being lower because he was trying to cover his own mistake.

Refusing to admit his mistake.

Because he may have thought that. And clearly, he *wanted* an
entrance wound consistent with what he had written in the AR, and
didn't want to admit a mistake.

He didn't want to admit he screwed up.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
And say what you want about the red spot, it will always look
two-dimensional.

Not if you have a stereo pair of the camera original color
transparencies.

You are not allowed to do that. You are a WC defender.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that it was a scalp
defect related to the large head wound. I tend to think the red spot was
that.

You also need to consider that the AP x-rays shows nasty fractures
radiating from a wound near the cowlick.

So what?

Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-12 00:32:00 UTC

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I see you are of the opinion that Humes just lied about the entry wound
being lower because he was trying to cover his own mistake. If that is

More like incompetence. They were holding up the loose scalp after the
skull had fallen apart. The only place where there could be any entrance
hole on the back of head would be where there is still skull bone left.
Everything above that had fallen out.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
true, then why did he think the hairline dark spot with the white matter
was an entry wound, even saying "it was BELOW the EOP", when he and Humes
were interviewed by the HSCA?

Because he thought it was brain matter oozing out of the entrance wound.
A WC defender named Artwohl examined the photos at the National Archives
and confirmed that it was a dab of fat tissue. The HSCA photographic
panel confirmed that is was ON TOP of the hair, not on the scalp.

It was his original mistake that night viewing the body. They were not
allowed to see the photos until 1968.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
And say what you want about the red spot, it will always look
two-dimensional. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that it was a scalp
defect related to the large head wound. I tend to think the red spot was
that.

Bloodclot? Can we put this up for a vote?

mainframetech

2017-06-12 23:53:12 UTC

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I see you are of the opinion that Humes just lied about the entry wound
being lower because he was trying to cover his own mistake. If that is
true, then why did he think the hairline dark spot with the white matter
was an entry wound, even saying "it was BELOW the EOP", when he and Humes
were interviewed by the HSCA?
Humes was almost certainly going by his memory, and this little mistake
would be expected with 15 years of time passed and also he was shown a
crappy quality photograph (or was he only shown the Dox drawing?). This
also shows that he would rather tend to think the wound was BELOW the EOP
rather than FOUR INCHES above.
And say what you want about the red spot, it will always look
two-dimensional. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that it was a scalp
defect related to the large head wound. I tend to think the red spot was
that.

While I agree that Humes lied, I believe it was in his writing of the
Autopsy Report (AR). There was no bullet entry at the BOH, because there
was a blowout there from a rifle bullet that entered the forehead over the
right eye. That wound was seen by a list of people and also a few autopsy
team members.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-14 13:42:05 UTC

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I see you are of the opinion that Humes just lied about the entry wound
being lower because he was trying to cover his own mistake. If that is
true, then why did he think the hairline dark spot with the white matter
was an entry wound, even saying "it was BELOW the EOP", when he and Humes
were interviewed by the HSCA?
Humes was almost certainly going by his memory, and this little mistake
would be expected with 15 years of time passed and also he was shown a
crappy quality photograph (or was he only shown the Dox drawing?). This
also shows that he would rather tend to think the wound was BELOW the EOP
rather than FOUR INCHES above.
And say what you want about the red spot, it will always look
two-dimensional. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that it was a scalp
defect related to the large head wound. I tend to think the red spot was
that.

Well, finally. You gave up on the magic temple entry.

mainframetech

2017-06-11 18:03:04 UTC

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?

I have never said that Humes was an 'evil conspirator'. He was a dupe
ordered to falsify an Autopsy Report (AR). The body was stolen with the
limousine so that they could do the autopsy at a military hospital and
give orders to the pathologists and as long as they supplied a good
excuse, the orders would be followed. And that is what happened, based on
the evidence, to give us a false AR that did NOT fit with the conclusions
seen DURING the autopsy.

Here's what Humes said about the 'red spot':

"After several failed attempts to get both Humes and Boswell to agree the
inshoot was high, the HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with
Humes, this time concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy
photos visible at the top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp
was the inshoot. Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but
unblemished rear of JFK’s skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting
alongside him, responded: “I don’t know what that [red
spot] is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to
this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any
point. I don’t know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood.
I don’t, I just don’t know what it is, but it certainly
was not any wound of entrance.”

From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm

Post by John McAdams
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?

Anyone can look at the photo and see that it's not a bullet hole, I
provided Humes' statement for backup. Compared with the Ida Dox drawing,
it's obvious that they ordered her to include a bullet hole to make it
look like it was there. Just more faking.

Post by John McAdams
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?

Is there a photo of the resultant view they looked at? I know of no
photo showing a real bullet hole in the BOH. Even the BOH 'leaked' photo
has no bullet hole. And of course, we have the list of over 39 witnesses
that saw a 'large hole' in the BOH of JFK. It was probably right where
the so-called bullet hole was supposed to be. That's the bullet hole that
Humes said was in 2 different places, and Boswell said was down and to the
right.

Post by John McAdams
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

So you're trying to get away with saying that the 'red spot' was
really the bullet hole? Naah. There is no better quality photo that will
show that 'red spot' any better than it is now, and Humes' statement fits
it perfectly. It's nothing.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.

Ah. You suggest that I lie, or I'm mistaken? What do you say to the
proof supplied? Or have you take refuge in the WCR? No thought to the
photo, or what as said about it. No proof that Humes was wrong about the
red spot, just a suggestion that he was worried about his reputation.
I'm not convinced, and I've been convinced before of something.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-11 23:36:28 UTC

Oh! Humes said that, did he?
I thought he was one of your evil conspirators. Now he's the expert?

I have never said that Humes was an 'evil conspirator'. He was a dupe
ordered to falsify an Autopsy Report (AR). The body was stolen with the
limousine so that they could do the autopsy at a military hospital and
give orders to the pathologists and as long as they supplied a good
excuse, the orders would be followed. And that is what happened, based on
the evidence, to give us a false AR that did NOT fit with the conclusions
seen DURING the autopsy.
"After several failed attempts to get both Humes and Boswell to agree the
inshoot was high, the HSCA’s Charles Petty, MD had another go with
Humes, this time concerning the possibility a red spot in the autopsy
photos visible at the top of JFK’s otherwise pristine rear scalp
was the inshoot. Gazing together at the photograph showing the all but
unblemished rear of JFK’s skull, Humes, with Boswell sitting
alongside him, responded: “I don’t know what that [red
spot] is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to
this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any
point. I don’t know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood.
I don’t, I just don’t know what it is, but it certainly
was not any wound of entrance.”
From: https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm

Post by John McAdams
You are aware that he was facing skeptical questioning by the HSCA
FPP, right? And to admit the cowlock defect was the entrance wound
would be to admit a major screwup, right?

Anyone can look at the photo and see that it's not a bullet hole, I

Not true. WC defenders are not allowed to look at the autopsy photos.
They were not officially released. They were LEAKED by a LEAKER.
They think it would be a violation of the law from them to look at the
autopsy photos.
Whatever the WCR said thay have to believe. Otherwise they are unpatriotic.

Post by mainframetech
provided Humes' statement for backup. Compared with the Ida Dox drawing,
it's obvious that they ordered her to include a bullet hole to make it
look like it was there. Just more faking.

Baden personally directed her to add details around the edges to make it
look like an entrance wound.

Post by John McAdams
And were you aware that the FPP has a *stereo pair* of the camera
original color transparencies?

Can you explain how there could be a bullet hole on the back of the head
when the shot came from the grassy knoll? Maybe LIFE could say JFK
turned his head. Yeah, that's it!

Post by John McAdams
While it might not seem to you that the cowlick defect is an entrance
wound (because you don't want to see that) the FPP had far superior
materials to look at.

I love how these guys keep changing their story.
For 30 years they said that the entrance wound was near the EOP. How all
of a sudden they say the WC lies and the HSCA was right.

The cover-up can't depend on these guys for anything.

Post by mainframetech
It's amazing that no one seems to wonder at this evidence, or why it
would be faked up as it is. as the real autopsy photos also altered like
these?

You think it "faked up" because you *need* it to be faked up.

Ah. You suggest that I lie, or I'm mistaken? What do you say to the
proof supplied? Or have you take refuge in the WCR? No thought to the

What proof? They are not allowed to see proof.

Post by mainframetech
photo, or what as said about it. No proof that Humes was wrong about the
red spot, just a suggestion that he was worried about his reputation.
I'm not convinced, and I've been convinced before of something.
Chris

claviger

2017-06-11 13:16:55 UTC

Dr Humes and Dr Finck measured the entrance wound on the BOH. The problem
was the scalp was loose because of the massive exit wound on top of the
head and numerous fractures in the back of the skull. Do you believe the
entrance wound was close to the EOP? If so please explain the trajectory
angle from the 6th floor window or the GK if that is what you believe.
Why was there a fragment trail back to front in the upper brain cavity not
anywhere close to the EOP?

Beyond Wikipedia

2017-06-11 23:29:50 UTC

More than one shot to the head. The EOP wound had no relation to the large
head wound, unless you want to go the alteration route.

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-12 16:49:09 UTC

Dr Humes and Dr Finck measured the entrance wound on the BOH. The problem

Not accurately.

Post by claviger
was the scalp was loose because of the massive exit wound on top of the
head and numerous fractures in the back of the skull. Do you believe the
entrance wound was close to the EOP? If so please explain the trajectory

No. What entrance wound? The forehead is not that close to the EOP.

Post by claviger
angle from the 6th floor window or the GK if that is what you believe.

They need to lie about something to get the trajectory to work. Just
like the SBT. It's not easy running a cover-up. One lie lead to another,
etc.

Post by claviger
Why was there a fragment trail back to front in the upper brain cavity not
anywhere close to the EOP?

Because it leads to the entrance hole above the right eye.

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
More than one shot to the head. The EOP wound had no relation to the large
head wound, unless you want to go the alteration route.

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-12 00:33:43 UTC

Here's a trajectory for you:

Loading Image...

Beyond Wikipedia

2017-06-12 20:43:14 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

Is the dark squiggly line in Kennedy's neck on the X-ray not evidence for
a EOP-throat connection?

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-13 18:35:54 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

Is the dark squiggly line in Kennedy's neck on the X-ray not evidence for
a EOP-throat connection?

I can't tell what you are talking about. SHOW me.

Do you mean the Boston Globe diagram?
That was just rumors they heard.
No scientific basis.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

In fact Dr. Perry said the bullet entered the throat and exited the top
of the head. I don't think he diagrammed it.

Subject: Re: Dr. Perry's hypothetical answer
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:07:08 GMT
From: ***@ix.netcom.com (Barb Junkkarinen)
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
"At the news conference, Dr. Perry answered a series of hypothetical

questions

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
and stated to the press that a variety of possibilities could account for

the

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
President's wounds. He stated that a single bullet could have caused the
President's wounds by entering through the throat, striking the spine, and
being deflected upward with the point of exit being through the head.

This

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
would have accounted for the two wounds he observed, the hole in the front

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
the neck and the large opening in the skull."
Dr. Perry had insufficient knowledge of the President's wounds when he

made
the

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
above statement. However, Dr. Perry's hypothetical trajectory infers a

rear

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
head wound. The reason is the angle of deflection of the bullet by the

spine

Post by Beyond Wikipedia
had to be less than ninety degrees. In other words, a bullet striking the
throat from the front would exit to the rear at some increased elevation.

One does not need to infer anything.....the WC supposedly couldn't
locate it, but the Parkland Press Conference lives on. Perry and Clark
are quite explicit about there being a wound in the rear of the
head....and how, though they didn't know if more than one bullet had
been involved in JFK's wounds, the large wound at the rear of the head
could have been the exit for the throat wound (which they thought
looked like an exit).....or an additional tangential shot. Transcript
of the press conference follows.

[This transcript was typed by former JFK researcherKathleen Cunningham
and given to me in late 1994. BJ]

QUOTE

PRESS CONFERENCE

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

DALLAS, TEXAS

NOVEMBER 22, 1963

3:16 P.M. CST

AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH WAYNE HAWKS

MR. HAWKS-
Let me have your attention, please.
You wanted to talk to some of the attending
physicians. I have two of them here, Dr. Malcom Perry, an
attending surgeon here at Parkland Memorial Hospital. He
will talk to you first, and then Dr. Kemp Clark, the chief
neurosurgeon here at the hospital. He will tell you what he
knows about it.
Dr. Perry.

QUESTION-
Were you in attendance when the President
died?

QUESTION-
Let him tell his story.

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I was summoned to the Emergency Room shortly
after
the President was brought in, on an emergency basis,
immediately after the President's arrival. Upon reaching his
side, I noted that he was in critical condition from a wound
of the neck and of the head. Immediate resuscitative
measures--

QUESTION-
Would you go slower?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I noted he was in critical condition from the
wound
in the neck and the head.

QUESTION-
Could that be done by one shot?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I cannot conjecture. I don't know.

QUESTION-
A would [sic] of the neck and of the--

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
--of the head. Immediate resuscitative
measures were
undertaken, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Professor of Neurosurgery,
was summoned, along with several other members of the
surgical and medical staff. They arrived immediately, but at
this point the President's condition did not allow complete
resuscitation.

QUESTION-
What do you mean by "complete resuscitation"?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
He was critically ill and moribund at the time
these
measures were begun.

QUESTION-
Completely ill and what?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Moribund.

QUESTION-
What does that mean?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Near death.

QUESTION-
What was the word you used?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Moribund. Dr. Clark arrived thereafter,
immediately.

QUESTION-
Could you tell us what resuscitative measures
were
attempted?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Assisted respiration.

QUESTION-
What is that?

QUESTION-
With what?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Assisted respiration with oxygen and an
anesthesia
machine, passage of an endotracheal tube.

QUESTION-
Does that mean you stick it in?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Yes, place it in the trachea.

QUESTION-
Spell it for us, please.

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
E-n-d-o-t-r-a-c-h-e-a-l. A tracheostomy.

QUESTION-
Did they perform a tracheostomy?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Yes.

QUESTION-
Would you spell it?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
T-r-a-c-h-e-o-s-t-o-m-y.

QUESTION-
Was there a priest in the room at this time,
Doctor?

MR. HAWKS-
The doctor is just telling you about the
operation.

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Blood and fluids were also given, and an
electrocardiograph monitor was attached to record any heart
beat that might be present. At this point, Dr. Clark was also
in attendance.

QUESTION-
What is his name?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Dr. Kemp Clark. And Dr. Charles Baxter.

DR. KEMP CLARK-
I was called by Dr. Perry because the
President--

QUESTION-
You are Dr. Clark?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
I am Dr. Clark. --because the President had
sustained
a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the
tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve
any possible--

QUESTION-
Could you slow down a little bit, Doctor,
please?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
--to relieve any possibility of air being in
the
pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up,
blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr.
Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a
lethal wound.

A missile had gone in or out of the back of
his head,
causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue.
Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his
heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had
stopped.

We attempted resuscitative measures of his
heart,
including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail.

QUESTION-
Was that closed chest?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Yes.

QUESTION-
Does that mean external, Doctor, closed?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Yes. We were able to obtain palpable pulses by
this
method, but, again, to no avail.

QUESTION-
What is palpable?

MR. HAWKS-
What did you ask?

QUESTION-
Palpable?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Palpable.

QUESTION-
Palpable what?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Pulses.

QUESTION-
Doctor, how many doctors were in attendance at
the
time of the President's death?

QUESTION-
Doctor, can you tell us how long after he
arrived on
the Emergency table before he expired? In other words, how
long was he living while in the hospital?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
40 minutes, perhaps.

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I was far too busy to tell. I didn't even look
at my
watch.

DR. KEMP CLARK-
I would guess about 40 minutes.

QUESTION-
Doctor, can you describe the course of the
wound
through the head?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the
track,
but the back of his head.

QUESTION-
And through the neck?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Principally on his right side, towards the
right side.

QUESTION-
What was the exact time of death, doctor?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
That is very difficult to say. We were very
busy, and
in answer to someone else's question, we had a lot of people
in attendance. We elected to make this at 1300.

QUESTION-
You elected?

QUESTION-
What, sir?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
We pronounced him at 1300 hours.

QUESTION-
Thirteen of?

MR. HAWKS-
1:00 o'clock.

QUESTION-
Can you describe his neck wound?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
I was busy with his head wound. I would like
to ask
the people took care of that part to describe that to you.

QUESTION-
What was the question?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The neck wound, as visible on the patient,
revealed a
bullet hole almost in the mid line.

QUESTION-
What was that?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
A bullet hole almost in the mid line.

QUESTION-
Would you demonstrate?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
In the lower portion of the neck, in front.

QUESTION-
Can you demonstrate, Doctor, on your own neck?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Approximately here (indicating).

QUESTION-
Below the Adam's apple?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Below the Adam's apple.

QUESTION-
Doctor, is it the assumption that it went
through the
head?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
That would be on conjecture on my part. There
are two
wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the
head. Whether they are directly related or related to two
bullets, I cannot say.

QUESTION-
Where was the entrance wound?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
There was an entrance wound in the neck. As
regards
the one on the head, I cannot say.

QUESTION-
Which way was the bullet coming on the neck
wound? At
him?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
It appeared to be coming at him.

QUESTION-
And the one behind?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The nature of the wound defies the ability to
describe
whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell
you that. Can you, Dr. Clark?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
The head wound could have been either the exit
wound
from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as
it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.

QUESTION-
That was the immediate cause of death--the
head
wound?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
I assume so, yes.

QUESTION-
There is a rumor that Lyndon Johnson had a
heart
attack, and I would like to check that out.

DR. KEMP CLARK-
I have no information.

MR. HAWKS-
I don't believe these gentlemen were in
attendance
with the Vice President.

QUESTION-
Where was he when this was going on?

MR. HAWKS-
That is not a question you should put to this
doctor.

QUESTION-
Can you tell us where he is?

MR. HAWKS-
I can't now, but Mr. Kilduff will be available
later
and we will take those details then.

QUESTION-
We can't hear you.

MR. HAWKS-
They were asking where the Vice President was,
but I
don't know at the moment. That is not the proper question to
put to these gentlemen. They were busy with the President at
the time.

QUESTION-
Where was Mrs. Kennedy?

MR. HAWKS-
I don't know that detail either. As you might
suspect,
we were all busy around here.

QUESTION-
Can't we clear this up just a little more? In
your
estimation, was there one or two wounds? Just give us
something.

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I don't know. From the injury, it is
conceivable that
it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have
been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head
in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that
due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to
tell.

QUESTION-
Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think
from
the front in the throat?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in
the
front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound,
I don't know. It could have been the head or there could
have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to
determine this at the particular instant.

QUESTION-
Would the bullet have to travel up from the
neck wound
to exit through the back?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Unless it was deviated from its course by
striking bone
or some other object.

QUESTION-
Doctor, can you give us your ages, please?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I am 34.

QUESTION-
You are Doctor who?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Perry.

MR. HAWKS-
This is Dr. Malcom Perry, attending surgeon,
and this
is Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at this hospital.

QUESTION-
How old are you, sir?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
38.

QUESTION-
Is that C-l-a-r-k?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Yes.

QUESTION-
Can you tell us whether the autopsy will be
performed
here or elsewhere?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I do not have that information.

MR. HAWKS-
I don't know either.

QUESTION-
Will there be one?

MR. HAWKS-
I don't know that.

QUESTION-
Where is the President's body?

MR. HAWKS-
I couldn't tell you.

QUESTION-
Was the President ever conscious after the
bullet
struck him?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
No, not while I was in attendance.

QUESTION-
How much blood was used?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I don't know. There was considerable bleeding.

QUESTION-
How soon did you see him after he got in?

QUESTION-
Did you have to send for blood?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Blood was sent for and obtained; yes.

QUESTION-
Where?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
From our Blood Bank.

QUESTION-
Here in the hospital?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Here in the hospital.

QUESTION-
How much was used?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I don't know.

QUESTION-
Doctor, were the last rites performed in the
Emergency
Room?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Yes.

QUESTION-
Yes, they were?

MR. HAWKS-
Yes, they said they were. Kilduff told you,
too.

QUESTION-
Which room was this? What is the room like?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Emergency Operating Room No. 1.

QUESTION-
How far from the door is that, and which way?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Straight in from the Emergency Room entrance,
at the
back of the hospital, approximately 40 feet.

QUESTION-
Approximately what?

MR. HAWKS-
Forty feet from the emergency entrance.

QUESTION-
The first floor?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
The ground floor.

QUESTION-
How many doctors and nurses were in attendance
at the
time of death?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
There were at least eight or ten physicians at
that
time.

QUESTION-
At least eight or ten physicians?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
Yes.

QUESTION-
Did you think him mortally wounded at the time
you
first examined him, or did you think there was no possibility
of saving his life at that point?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
No, I did not.

DR. KEMP CLARK-
No, sir.

QUESTION-
Did you say there were eight or ten doctors or
doctors
and nurses?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Eight or ten doctors.

QUESTION-
Can we get that straight, Doctor? Did you say
you did
not think there was any possibility of saving his life when
you first looked at him?

DR KEMP CLARK-
That is what I said; yes.

QUESTION-
How long had he been in before you saw him,
sir?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
This I don't know because I was not looking at
my
watch.

QUESTION-
Who was the first doctor who saw him, and how
long
before he got there?

DR. KEMP CLARK-
Just a matter of a few seconds.

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I arrived there shortly after his admission. I
can't
tell you the exact time because I went immediately and he had
just been admitted and I walked in the room. I don't know the
exact time. I was in quite a hurry.

QUESTION-
Were there any members of the family or others
in the
room besides the doctors, in the Emergency Room?

DR. MALCOM PERRY-
I am afraid I was not aware of that. I was
quite too
busy to notice.

MR. HAWKS-
We will have to get those details from Mac.

QUESTION-
Do you have any new details about our plans,
what you
are going to do?

MR. HAWKS-
I can't until I get a reading from you
fellows. For
instance, you have a new President.

QUESTION-
Do we? Was he sworn in?

MR. HAWKS-
Well, he went somewhere to get sworn in. I
assume he is
sworn in at this time, but I wasn't in attendance. Obviously,
you are going to have a new President. Let's put it that way.

QUESTION-
Where is he going to be?

MR. HAWKS-
That is what I am trying to find out. Mac is
with him,
trying to get the details, and he will call me or come in
here. We will try to find out.

DR. PERRY-
Can we go now?

THE PRESS-
Thank you, Doctors.

MR. HAWKS-
Your plans, what do you want to do?

QUESTION-
First, is there any more about Mrs. Kennedy?

MR. HAWKS-
Let's do some "supposing" because we need some
planning
for your press plane.

QUESTION-
How about Mrs. Kennedy? Has she gone back to
Washington, or is she going?

MR. HAWKS-
That is what Mac is trying to find out now.
This takes
a lot of doing.

QUESTION-
Can we stay here with the new President?

MR. HAWKS-
If you want to stay here with the new
President, if he
stays here. I don't know that he is going to stay here. That
is why I want to "suppose" here for a minute.

QUESTION-
Let's put it on the basis of what the new
President
does. If he stays, we stay; and if he goes, we go.

MR. HAWKS-
Suppose the body goes back and the new
President stays?
Do some of you want to stay, or go?

QUESTION-
Stay with the new President.

MR. HAWKS-
All right, that is what I wanted to find out.
You know,
there are buses and planes and things like that.

QUESTION-
I know I won't be going back in any case. Can
I get my
luggage back here? How do we get luggage on the press plane
off of there?

MR. HAWKS-
If we decide to spend the night here, we will
get the
luggage here. Don't worry about it.

QUESTION-
We have luggage in the wire car, but God knows
where it
is.

QUESTION-
Where will the next briefing be, here or
where?

MR. HAWKS-
Right here, so far as I know. This is where
Mac said he
could come back to.

END
*********************

Bests,
Barb :-)

There is NO EOP wound. There is a connection between the UPPER BACK
wound and the throat wound, as the HSCA diagrammed it.

Loading Image...

Can you see the fracture of T-1? Baden could.

claviger

2017-06-13 00:06:32 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by claviger
Dr Humes and Dr Finck measured the entrance wound on the BOH. The problem
was the scalp was loose because of the massive exit wound on top of the
head and numerous fractures in the back of the skull. Do you believe the
entrance wound was close to the EOP? If so please explain the trajectory
angle from the 6th floor window or the GK if that is what you believe.
Why was there a fragment trail back to front in the upper brain cavity not
anywhere close to the EOP?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

I thought you said there was no entrance wound in back of the head.

mainframetech

2017-06-12 23:53:48 UTC

There was no bullet wound on the BOH of JFK. The reason is because
there was a 'large hole' there which was a blowout from the bullet that
entered the forehead over the right eye, and can be seen in one of the
autopsy photos:

Loading Image...

ENLARGE the photo and look at the right side of the forehead over the
right eye among the hair hanging down.

Chris

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-14 13:41:52 UTC

There was no bullet wound on the BOH of JFK. The reason is because

So you see q huge hole and you don't call that a bullet wound?

Post by mainframetech
there was a 'large hole' there which was a blowout from the bullet that
entered the forehead over the right eye, and can be seen in one of the
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e8/db/db/e8dbdb83da587af5c8d2450fa574908f.jpg
ENLARGE the photo and look at the right side of the forehead over the
right eye among the hair hanging down.
Chris

Anthony Marsh

2017-06-10 17:22:08 UTC