Customer Discussions > Jfk Assassination forum

What did the Parkland doctors actually say concerning Kennedy's wounds?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 48 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 9, 2011 4:53:45 PM PST
This thread is going to attempt to start a new trend on this site. All too often posters allow their comments to wander far afield from the proposed topic. Questions dealing with balistic evidence soon devolve into accusations of posters identities and obessions with Hillary Clinton, 9/11, moon landing photographs, JFK's sex life, or other silly issues unrelated to the topic at hand.

Therefore, at least from myself, I will not respond to ANY post on this thread that does not stick to the topic AND offer supporting evidence. This thread will deal with what the doctors in Dallas ACTUALLY said concerning Kennedy's back and head wound and nothing else.

I already understand that requiring that actual quotes and sources must be included in posts will put the conspiracy advocates at a great disadvantage since virtually no conspiracy posters EVER refer to actual evidence or testimony. But it IS out there. It is up to posters to do their own research. The old conspiracy tactic of, "Well I said it... now YOU prove I'm wrong..." won't fly on this thread. If a claim is made then others need to be able to read the comments made by the doctors themselves to which you are referring. Post that include such conspiracy excuses as: "Well the evidence is out there and if you don't know about it then I'm not going to tell you"...or..."It is not my job to do YOUR research"...or..."I've heard a hundred times that such and such a doctor said this or that..." ...or..."Well I know deep down this is true but all the evidence has been destroyed..." None of those diversionary tactics will be responded to. If you can't prove it with testimony don't refer to it.

Now, having laid down the ground rules, I will start out with a few quotes from the Dallas doctors concerning the back/throat wound of President Kennedy. I am convinced that the actual statements of the doctors are always the best to refer to whenever possible. Rebuttals are welcome, so long as they also include quotes from the Parkland doctors to bolster the claims from the conspiracy side of the tracks. Please keep in mind that Cyril Wecht was NOT one of the Parkland doctors.

Posted on Mar 9, 2011 6:20:13 PM PST
For conspiracy theorists I may need to explain how referencing sources actually works since so few have ever dealt with actual testimony. The "6H" following the quote means the quote came from Volume 6 of the Warren Commission Volumes of Testimony and Hearings...of course the "44" is the page number. Therefore anyone with a computer can go to this site:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/wc/contents_ wh.htm
where they can read these words for themselves. For many conspiracy believers this will be the first time they have ever read the actual testimony from an original source rather than hearing it paraphrased by a conspiracy proponent on "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" or in some pro-conspiracy book, article, or webcast.

Now...concerning the location of the head wound:

Dr. Charles Baxter testified that the head exit wound was in the "temporal and parietal" area of the head. (6H 44) The temporal region is of course is to the sides, above the ears, while the parietal region is to top portion of the head.

Dr. Robert Grossman, the neurosurgeon who accompanied Dr. William Kemp Clark, the chief neurosurgeon at Parkland Hospital, into Trauma Room One, said, that the large defect he was was "in the parietal area above the right ear." (Ben Bradlee, "Dispute on JFK Assassination Evidence Persists, " Boston Globe, June 21, 1981, p. A23.)

Dr. Adolph Giesecke Jr. testifed the exit wound extended "from the brow line (the ridge above the eye) to the occiput on the lefthand side of the head. (6H 74)

Dr. Marion "Pepper" Jenkins, the Parkland anesthesiologist, said he saw "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital.) (CE 392, 17 H 15) This testimony is significant because Jenkins would have been located at the head of Kennedy (being the anesthesiologist) and thus would have had the best vantage to see a wound to the BACK of the head (if there was one.) Since HE never made mention of any wound to the back of the head it appears there wasn't one.

Dr. Kenneth Salyer told the Warren Commission that the exit wound was in the "right temporal region" (meaning above the right ear--EXACTLY where the Zapruder film showed the wound to be and where the autopsy would later establish the exit wound to be located.) (6H 81)

Dr. Donald Seldin, chairman of the Department of Medicine at Parkland, said that "the entire frontal, parietal and temporal bones were shattered...I believe that the official story is accurate in all details." (Letter from Dr. Donald Seldin to conspiracy advocate Vince Palamara dated August 27, 1998.)

Dr. Charles Carrico, one of the two primary doctors administering emergency care to the president, said the large defect was to "the right posterior parietal area."

Dr. William Kemp Clark and Gene Akin also said the large wound was in the "right occipital parietal region." (rear to top of skull on the right side.)

Dr. William Zedelitz, a second-year general-surgery resident at Parkland whose presense in the president's room was mentioned in the Warren Commission volumes, but who was never called to testify before the Commission was tracked down by conspiracy advocate Vincent Palamara and in a November 4, 1998 letter to Palamara also said that the president "had a massive head injury to the right occipital parietal area of the cranium." (the right-side top and rear portion of the head.)

Even Dr. Robert McClelland, the "Poster Boy for Conspiracy Lovers" among the Parkland
staff, stated in a March 21 1964 article which appeared in the "Texas State Journal of Medicine" that "the cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the right side of the head." Those within the conspiracy camp who maintain that witnesses were goaded or intimidated into giving altered testimony when appearing before the Warren Commission have a hard time reconciling this statement written by McClelland when he was far away from the bright lights of a Warren Commission examination room.

And a final note. Among the doctors who later testifed that they observed a wound to the right REAR of the head there are a few possible explanations:

1. To a president lying down (and NEVER turned over) the top of his head WOULD be the rear of the head to doctors standing mid-way down his body. If the chin was the start of his head then the top would have been the end or the rear portion of the head. While this is only supposition it could very-well explain what some of the doctors meant by a wound to the "rear of the head."

2. It is also important to note that some of the doctors mentioned that as the president was being worked on and his body was being jostled back and forth with closed-chest massage (the precursor to CPR) and removal of clothing, his skull began to deteriorate considerably--meaning it began to come apart in the doctor's hands. Therefore those doctors that joined the action LATER in the procedures would have seen the head in a different condition than those that were there early on. But those that saw it later wouldn't be seeing the actual exit wound as much as they would have been seeing the post-wound damage to the skull as the bones came apart and revealed greater amounts of brain tissue.

3. Perhaps the most likely explanation for the statements that claimed that the wound was to the "rear" of the head was the fact that the president had thick hair, matted with blood and pointing backwards--possibly from Jackie stroking his head in the limousine en route to Parkland as she testfied she did--thus giving individuals who were not paying close attention (as was the case with the doctors) that the hair, blood, and smeared brain material was in fact an open wound. In the gruesome autopsy photographs available on line and in "High Treason" the president's bloody hair is clearly visible pointing backwards and matted with brain matter and blood. Dr. Carrico told author Vincent Bugliosi that "The President was lying on his back so we [the doctors and staff] couldn't see the rear portion of his head." (Reclaiming History, p. 408)

Therefore this establishes the following points:

1. There certainly was NOT unanimity as to the location of the head wound.
2. SEVERAL doctors stated that the wound was exactly where the Zapruder film and the autopsy photographs and X-rays revealed it to be.
3. There were various possible explanations as to why some would have the impression (incorrect though it was) that the wound was further back than it was.
4. The President was NEVER turned over and NO ONE ever looked at the back of his head--thus calling into serious question ANY comments made later of a back of head exit wound.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 24, 2011 11:03:54 AM PDT
Joe Hartmann says:
Who actually knows? I'm very curious as to why the one doctor, I forget which, would admit to having destroyed something that he was writing at home. Why even mention it and create a surefire and tantalizing addition to an already convoluted tale? His explanation is certainly subject to speculation, if nothing else.

This mentioning of something by so many involved in this, that need not have been mentioned with no one knowing the difference is further evidence either of human stupidity or...

Posted on Mar 24, 2011 1:50:27 PM PDT
APK says:
Dr. Humes burned his blood stained notes after copying them. Not human stupidity, just telling the truth.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 30, 2011 9:10:13 AM PDT
"Who actually knows"

I'll tell you who actually knows...anyone that cares to read the actual evidence actually knows. The mdeical evidence is overwhelmingly detailed and conclusive. The only ones that fein innocence or conspiracy are those that choose to igonor the evidence in this case.

And a second point you wonder why anyone would admit to burning their original autopsy notes since it only made a convoluted case even more convoluted. Don't you see what message this conveys loudly to the world? THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY!!! If there had been some sort of conspiracy involving the autopsy doctors 9which virtually ALL conspiracy nuts believe) then why on earth would Dr. Humes admit to such an action? He could have burned his notes, never told a living soul, taken it to the grave, and he would have never been linked to any conspiracy. But the fact that he openly admitted to to doing that proves with 100% certainty that he wasn't a part of any conspiracy...simply an honest person admitting to something that didn't mean anything more than he stated. They were inaccurate following his conversation with the Dallas doctors, so rather than allow inaccurate notes to exist (also covered with the President's blood) he re-wrote them with the additional information he received from Dallas (about a front exit wound to the throat) and destroyed the old ones.

Also this logical explanation applies to Oswald also. IF Oswald were innocent of using his own rifle to murder Kennedy then he would have readily admitted to owning his rifle when questioned. Why wouldn't he? If he knew his rifle had not been used in the assassination then why not admit owning a legally-purchased and legally-possessed rifle in Dallas, Texas? But since Oswald KNEW that his rifle would be traced to the recovered bullets, then he lied about owning the rifle. To any objective researcher this logical point SCREAMS guilt on Oswald's part. No conspiracy believer has been able to successfully explain away Oswald's lying about his rifle ownership/

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 31, 2011 11:22:54 PM PDT
>>>I'll tell you who actually knows...anyone that cares to read the actual evidence actually knows. The mdeical evidence is overwhelmingly detailed and conclusive. The only ones that fein innocence or conspiracy are those that choose to igonor the evidence in this case. S V Anderson<<<

O.K. Then please explain Figure 62 from Vol 1 of Horne's work. Therein, the back of the President's skull is clearly shown to be missing - blown away, in fact. This is evident in other pictures as well, notably in ones depicting the top of the President's head. It won't do any good to deny this, because I've SEEN the photos, and I have Horne's works in my library. So I know what I'm talking about.

How could that be, if Oswald were the shooter? Kennedy was facing AWAY at the time of the shooting. The official explanations, of how this can be, are invariably tortured and convoluted nonsense, and sit poorly with Newtonian Physics. Such "explanations" insult one's intelligence. Try to do better here, if you can.

Please also explain the faked autopsy SKETCHES, that were provided to the Commission, in lieu of photographs. These fail to show the exit wound in the rear of the head, as well as its location.

Finally, you might also want to address the issue of the Presidential limousine itself. It was quickly "reconditioned," which is worse than tampering with evidence. It constituted DESTRUCTION of evidence. But these little "coincidences" just multiply like bunny rabbits in Spring, don't they? Certainly, here, in this case. So I'm inclined to say that in your quote above, you're coming across as dogmatic, to say the least. I have no dogma. I'm a skeptic, albeit one inclined to favor a conspiratorialist viewpoint. And for that I make no apology.

Posted on Apr 1, 2011 1:24:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2011 9:50:57 AM PDT
Oh, I just re-read your first post, and maybe that explains the silence. You said you wouldn't refer to any post that didn't reference testimony from the Parkland doctors. I believe Figure 62 in Horne's work may have been from Bethesda, instead. So, I imagine you have an easy "out," there. For my part, I don't see why it should be an issue as to where the photogaraph in Figure 62 was taken, but you must have your own reasons for your delay, or refusal to respond, whichever it is.

From where I sit, though, a photo is worth a thousand words, and is unambiguous, whereas verbal testimony can often be vague and conflicting. So your silence puzzles me. I think the questions raised by Figure 62 are worth asking, and worth exploring. But that's just MY opinion, as a skeptical, independent researcher. TGK

P.S. Do you really imagine that you'll get many responses here, if you confine the discussion ONLY to what's in the Warren Commission Report? THAT "Report" was a fraudulent, circumscribed, and castrated enterprise from its inception. Setting the "ground rules" in this manner appears to be a rather transparent attempt to determine the outcome in advance. And the LACK of response I've noticed confirms that impression, to my way of thinking. TGK

Posted on Apr 2, 2011 10:01:30 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 2, 2011 10:02:34 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 5:36:24 PM PDT
APK says:
The zapruder film shows the exit wound to be on the right side of JFK's head, above the ear. The corresponding entry wound was in the back of the head.
The Parkland doctors didn't turn JFK over, so they were unaware of both rear entry wounds.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 6:15:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2011 7:01:29 PM PDT
>>>The zapruder film shows the exit wound to be on the right side of JFK's head, above the ear. The corresponding entry wound was in the back of the head.
The Parkland doctors didn't turn JFK over, so they were unaware of both rear entry wounds. ARK<<<

False. Most of the back of JFK's skull is MISSING, as is evident in Figure 62 in Vol 1 of Horne's work, entitled Inside The Assassination Records Review Board. And the photo contained therein was taken with JFK facing UP. An RN noticed the massive exit wound in the rear of Kennedy's skull, apparently when they were bringing him in. You will also recall Malcom Kilduff pointing to his (own) right temple area during the initial interview(s) at Parkland, to reveal the location of the entry wound. It was at Parkland, moreover, that the comparison of the rear exit wound's size to a "grapefruit" was first made. So it is simply unimaginable that nobody at Parkland was aware of this.

It only gets worse, when one considers the faked autopsy sketches. These sketches attempted to obscure the location of the exit wound, by conflating it with the "flap" visible on the Zapruder film. The motive is obvious. Kennedy was facing AWAY from Oswald, the purported shooter. This fact flies in the face of the WCR's conclusion. If Oswald had been the shooter - e.g., from behind, then why is the EXIT wound in the back of JFK's head? It's preposterous, and the "flap" resulted from hydrostatic shock and bone fracture(s) which forced brain matter outwards. The mere fact that JFK's face is intact, while the right half of the rear of his skull is blown out, says that Oswald could not have fired the fatal head shot, since it had to come from in front of Kennedy. The purported PHOTOS of the rear of Kennedy's skull are inconsistent with Figure 62, since they reveal signs of retouching AND show the back of the head intact. But this wasn't the case, and Figure 62 proves it, along with other autopsy photographs.

Your conclusions fly in the face of common sense, and certainly physics as we know it. You are entitled to your opinion, but even if it agrees with the "official" view, that doesn't make it correct. The WCR conclusions are contradicted, even by the Bethesda autopsy photographs, not to mention Figure 62.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 7:10:21 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2011 7:12:15 PM PDT
APK says:
False. The zapruder film, dealey plaza eye witnesses, & the medical evidence(beveling, etc...)prove there was an exit wound on the right side of JFK's head. Remember: entry wound small-exit wound big. Most serious conspiracy theorists admit this fact & propose that two shots struck JFK's head. People such as pathologist Cyril Wecht. There simply is no getting around a right side exit wound. Wecht and other knowledgable researchers know this. How come you don't?
What does the zapruder film show if not a large exit wound over JFK's right ear? What doesn't it show? A rear "blow out." The zapruder film also shows JFK's driven forward by the impact of the bullet at frame 312-313.
Your theory has a multitude of "problems."

A total lack of physical, medical, eyewitness, and trajectory evidence to support it

The physical evidence found on the 6th floor and Harold Norman who heard three shots fire directly above him, and three shells hitting the floor

Tague's wound

Finally, how does your theory account for the evidence found in the limo?
Such as:

the crack in the windshield
lead residue found on the windshield
the dented chrome topping
the dented rearview mirror
blood spatter all over the front hood
and last but not least the bullet fragments found in front of JFK's back seat position. (that were both fired from Oswald's rifle)

Btw, What is the "official" view?

Three shots from the TSBD or four total shots with a grassy knoll miss?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 8:14:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2011 8:42:19 PM PDT
False once again.

"The zapruder film, dealey plaza eye witnesses, & the medical evidence(beveling, etc...)prove there was an exit wound on the right side of JFK's head
Remember: entry wound small-exit wound big. Most serious conspiracy theorists admit this fact & propose that two shots struck JFK's head. People such as pathologist Cyril Wecht. There simply is no getting around a right side exit wound. Wecht and other knowledgable researchers know this. How come you don't? "
{How come you're unwilling to point out, that Wecht doesn't rule out the grassy knoll as the location of the shooter? As to your other questions, I've already pointed out, the BACK of JFK's skull was gone. You can see that in Figure 62. I don't deny that there was a right side wound, but it WASN'T the exit wound. The exit wound was in the BACK OF THE SKULL. Now, have I said it plainly enough? Probably not. Take a closer look at Figure 62. You will notice that the BACK of the skull is gone. There are other photos, taken from the side as well, in Horne's work that make this even more obvious. Look at them as well. But you may be pathologically incapable of grasping something that obvious. Go ahead, deny it. I can plainly see it. And I have no doubt that others, who read these posts, will also see it. It isn't my fault that you refuse to, and wouldn't acknowledge it, even if you did. }

"What does the zapruder film show if not a large exit wound over JFK's right ear? What doesn't it show? A rear "blow out." The zapruder film also shows JFK's driven forward by the impact of the bullet at frame 312-313.Your theory has a multitude of "problems."" {No it doesn't. The supposition that Oswald shot from the rear, has far more problems. IF 312-313 show Kennedy driven forward, kindly explain why he is thrown BACK and TO THE LEFT, as revealed by the film. You're all wet, there.}

"The physical evidence found on the 6th floor and Harold Norman who heard three shots fire directly above him, and three shells hitting the floor" {Then why did Oswald fail the paraffin tests? Evidence can be planted, or hadn't you been aware of that?}

"Tague's wound" {Some say it was a piece of concrete. Dr. Wecht believes AT LEAST four shots were fired. I certainly wouldn't rule that out.}

"Finally, how does your theory account for the evidence found in the limo?
Such as:

the crack in the windshield" {Shots WERE fired from behind, from the Dal-Tex building. It was an AMBUSH, in otherwords.}

"lead residue found on the windshield" {Shots WERE fired from behind, from the Dal-Tex building. It was an AMBUSH, in otherwords.}

"the dented chrome topping" {Shots WERE fired from behind, from the Dal-Tex building. It was an AMBUSH, in otherwords.}

"the dented rearview mirror"{Shots WERE fired from behind, from the Dal-Tex building. It was an AMBUSH, in otherwords.}

"blood spatter all over the front hood" {The vehicle was in motion. But most of the gory residue was on the back end of the vehicle. Remember, Jackie reached BEHIND for the skull fragments. I doubt even YOU missed that.}

"and last but not least the bullet fragments found in front of JFK's back seat position." (that were both fired from Oswald's rifle) {Once again, planted evidence. BTW, more lead was removed from Connally's wrist alone, than was missing from C.E. 399}

"Btw, What is the "official" view?"{I'm amazed you have the balls to even ask me that. It is what you defend - e.g. the WCR.}

"Three shots from the TSBD or four total shots with a grassy knoll miss?" {I suspect two, or possibly three missed shots, all except two striking the skull*, with a grassy knoll hit in the right temple, as revealed by Kilduff's gesture. But once again, the exit wound was in the right-rear of the skull -and NOT to be confused with the broken tissues and bone matter protruding from the right top of the skull. I doubt, however, that even these sources will satisfy you. If you remain unconvinced, go to p. 37 of A Deeper, Darker Truth by Donald T. Phillips. There, you will see a computer-enhanced image of what the back of Kennedy's skull REALLY looked like. Kennedy was actually killed INSTANTLY; the time of death was only officially postponed to accommodate a priest's administration of Last Rites. But I doubt even this will convince you, since you are a professional debunker, and I imagine you work for the CIA, as do many such individuals. An intellectually honest person, upon seeing this enhanced image, would understand that it raises a serious problem. But, I don't expect that person to be you. }

*According to one account

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 9:03:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2011 9:10:09 PM PDT
APK says:
Your theory has no evidence supporting it, and is representative of extremist buffs pushing antique conspiracy theories.

For one, not one person heard shots from the Dal-Tex building.
The damage to the limo was caused by bullet fragments at subsonic speed. Are you arguing that the imaginary DAL-Tex rifle bullet(s) didn't have the power to penetrate the windshield? Really?

"the BACK of JFK's skull was gone"
If the back of the BACK of JFK's skull was gone, why doesn't the zapruder film show it? Why did not one dealey plaza witness say the BACK of JFK's skull was gone? Why has no medical expert who has studied the autopsy materials agree with you? Why?

"Then why did Oswald fail the paraffin tests? Evidence can be planted, or hadn't you been aware of that? Oh dear. Paraffin tests are unreliable, and this was the first time the DPD did that test. Why? Because they are unreliable. And of course, the sealed-chamber design of the C2766 would preclude a positive result.

"Remember, Jackie reached BEHIND for the skull fragments"
That is pure conjecture, typical of hard core buffs. No one in 47 years has proved that, but now in 2011 you have definitive proof?

And I suppose Kilduff's gesture trumps the mountain of evidence that proves the entry wound was in the back of JFK's head? Is that what you're saying?

"IF 312-313 show Kennedy driven forward, kindly explain why he is thrown BACK and TO THE LEFT, as revealed by the film."
JFK body moved almost directly rearward, not back&to the left. Experts have concluded that the violent rearward motion following zapruder frame 313 was a jet effect or a neuromuscular spasm.

You imagine an all-powerful conspiracy of hundreds, if not thousands planting evidence, altering autopsy materials, and professional shooters firing from places nobody heard a shot from, and missing their target three times. But even though that's what clearly happened, you are the only person smart enough to figure it out.

The plotters got away with it for 47 years, but now you Thomas Kroger have finally caught them? or is this an example of just another nutty theory from an irredeemable hard core conspiracy buff?

I have no doubt that others, who read these posts will conclude the latter. Especially after reading this:
"you are a professional debunker, and I imagine you work for the CIA, as do many such individuals."
"Imagine" is the key word. Some people imagine that UFO's killed JFK. Maybe someday you will?

What is the "official" view?
Three shots from the TSBD(WC) or four total shots with a grassy knoll miss?(HSCA)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 10:46:32 PM PDT
My silence is due to the fact that the autopsy photographs that show no damage to the back of the head have already been proven by photographic experts to be valid. There is no photographic evidence of any photo tampering. I have never seen any photographs of the back of the head that reveal any damage. If there were such legitimate photographs they would be all over the Internet and would have been covered extensively by the media. When I see this photo that you allege shows damage to the back of the head I will then reconsider my position.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 10:49:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 2, 2011 10:50:30 PM PDT
Welcome to the club APK. Now Thomas has linked YOU with the CIA also. Between T.K. and Robert Morrow we are ALL in on the conspiracy. This is a common tactic of the nutty of the nutty. ANYONE that defends the evidence in this case must be in on the conspiracy and with the CIA. OF course Thomas and Robert Morrow can't agree on which steps they are dancing. Thomas's pet theory is that the CIA was behind it, Robert Morrow's pet theory is that LBJ was behind.

Welcome to Conspiracyland.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 11:22:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2011 12:28:06 AM PDT
"Your theory has no evidence supporting it, and is representative of extremist buffs pushing antique conspiracy theories." {Your opinion, merely, and what I'd expect from a hard-core WC apologist, and conspiracy denier, such as yourself. Go back to Figure 62 in Horne's work, and repeat what you've just said. Do it now. "Denial" is not the name of a river in Africa.}

"For one, not one person heard shots from the Dal-Tex building.
The damage to the limo was caused by bullet fragments at subsonic speed. Are you arguing that the imaginary DAL-Tex rifle bullet(s) didn't have the power to penetrate the windshield? Really?" {No, I didn't say that. The windshield, which was suddenly replaced, btw, had at least one bullet hole that I know of. In any event, BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED, we will never know for sure.}

"'the BACK of JFK's skull was gone'
If the back of the BACK of JFK's skull was gone, why doesn't the zapruder film show it? Why did not one dealey plaza witness say the BACK of JFK's skull was gone? Why has no medical expert who has studied the autopsy materials agree with you? Why?" {Simply because it WAS gone, and the photographs SHOW it. As does the enhanced image on p. 37 of Philip's work. Deny it all you want, this enhancement was made by a computer, and it establishes a massive, gaping wound in the back of Kennedy's skull. As for it not being apparent in Dealy Plaza, recall the bloody fog, and the President's torso and head collapsing into Jackie's lap, and the limo speeding away from the scene, toward Parkland.}

"'Then why did Oswald fail the paraffin tests? Evidence can be planted, or hadn't you been aware of that?' Oh dear. Paraffin tests are unreliable, and this was the first time the DPD did that test. Why? Because they are unreliable. And of course, the sealed-chamber design of the C2766 would preclude a positive result." {This is a negative result, in any event. I believe Oswald never fired a rifle that day, as does Jim Garrison. I know you dislike him. But then, I don't much care for YOU, either.}

"Remember, Jackie reached BEHIND for the skull fragments"
That is pure conjecture, typical of hard core buffs. No one in 47 years has proved that, but now in 2011 you have definitive proof? {No it isn't conjecture. I've seen PICTURES, both stills, as well as motion shots, of her groping toward the rear of the limousine's trunk, trying to retrieve bone fragments of her mortally-wounded husband's skull. So you are just lying, here, pure and simple.}

"And I suppose Kilduff's gesture trumps the mountain of evidence that proves the entry wound was in the back of JFK's head? Is that what you're saying?" {Yes, it does, and that's exactly what I'm saying. Aren't you the one who argues that "primary sources" are the most reliable? I know S V Anderson does, and I know you "think" just like he does - if indeed one can call it "thinking." "Parroting" is actually more appropriate. Why? Because when it's convenient, you choose to ignore these valuable pieces of PRIMARY TESTIMONY. Why? It's simple: you are intellectually dishonest.}

"IF 312-313 show Kennedy driven forward, kindly explain why he is thrown BACK and TO THE LEFT, as revealed by the film."
JFK body moved almost directly rearward, not back&to the left. Experts have concluded that the violent rearward motion following zapruder frame 313 was a jet effect or a neuromuscular spasm. {Not what I can readily see with my own eyesight. You are once again dishonest, just as you are when you contend that Jackie doesn't try to retrieve fragments. Nearly everyone else HAS seen this. You ignore it, because you are, once again, intellectually dishonest.}

"You imagine an all-powerful conspiracy of hundreds, if not thousands planting evidence, altering autopsy materials, and professional shooters firing from places nobody heard a shot from, and missing their target three times. But even though that's what clearly happened, you are the only person smart enough to figure it out." {Not true. It has taken hundreds of independent researchers, and FOIA lawsuits, among other things, to bring to the surface the suppressed evidence, and autopsy photos, which agree with Philip's enhanced image, and establish the rear wound in Kennedy's skull as an exit wound. You can't deal with it, and so I DON'T expect you to acknowledge it.}

"The plotters got away with it for 47 years, but now you Thomas Kroger have finally caught them? or is this an example of just another nutty theory from an irredeemable hard core conspiracy buff?" {This scarcely warrants a response. You can't deal with it when someone - anyone - presents a consistent theory of the crime that refutes your lame version, notwithstanding its "official" standing, in the WCR. But it's not just my theory. It is only a modification of Jim Garrison's works, using information that has surfaced since then, drawing on the research of at least a score of independent, CRITICAL researchers, as opposed to PARTISAN DEBUNKERS, such as yourself. So, all I can say is: Poor baby.}

"I have no doubt that others, who read these posts will conclude the latter. Especially after reading this:
`you are a professional debunker, and I imagine you work for the CIA, as do many such individuals.'
`Imagine' is the key word. Some people imagine that UFO's killed JFK. Maybe someday you will?"
{You believe something equally incredible, so what can I say?}

What is the "official" view?
Three shots from the TSBD(WC) or four total shots with a grassy knoll miss?(HSCA)
{Since the wound in the rear of JFK's skull could only have been an exit wound, a grassy knoll hit. Probabilistic reasoning is probably the best we will get w/r/t the remaining shots. The HSCA was a "modified limited hangout," and an effort at damage control. Be that as it may, I use "official view" as shorthand for the WCR.}

***
God, you're a wretch. I have contempt for people like you, who deny common sense, logic, and everyday physics. Because you then have the chutzpah to call OUR theories of the crime "extremist," or "nutty." Such characterizations are lame, and don't address evidence, such as I've set forth. The explanation(s) I've set forth here - of a successful attack from the grassy knoll - are more economical by far than your skewed, partisan "interpretation," which invokes dubious "jet effects," and evidence suppression, to gain ANY credibility. And you've STILL failed to address what one readily discerns from Figure 62 in Horne's work - that the back of the President's skull is INDEED gone. The fact that this wasn't "observed" in Dealy Plaza shouldn't surprise anyone. But, IT IS APPARENT IN THE SURVIVING EVIDENCE, which you continue to ignore, establishing a pattern of SELECTIVITY, to support your beloved "Lone Nut" hypothesis, which fails miserably.

TGK

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 2, 2011 11:56:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2011 1:54:50 AM PDT
>>>My silence is due to the fact that the autopsy photographs that show no damage to the back of the head have already been proven by photographic experts to be valid. There is no photographic evidence of any photo tampering. I have never seen any photographs of the back of the head that reveal any damage. If there were such legitimate photographs they would be all over the Internet and would have been covered extensively by the media. When I see this photo that you allege shows damage to the back of the head I will then reconsider my position. SVA<<<

I simply disagree, but I suspect we listen to different sources. I trust mine, because of what I've seen, and it involves clear, unambiguous evidence of retouching. But recall that SKETCHES were presented to the WC. And everything "my" experts relate confirms Figure 62 in Horne. There are other images that are equally damming, but 62 is perhaps the best. So go and look at them. They're not for the faint-hearted, though. If you really do so with an open mind, what you see will startle you. Then, if you can stomach even more, go to page 37 of Philips's work (A Deeper, Darker Truth,) and notice how consistent ALL these images are.

I certainly didn't make them up. And if you're honest enough to change your opinion based on what you see thereupon, I will be the last person to poke fun at you. The same would be true in APK's case, if he were (so) inclined, but I'm more than a little P.O.'d at him as of this writing. TGK

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2011 12:02:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2011 12:20:42 AM PDT
>>>Welcome to the club APK. Now Thomas has linked YOU with the CIA also. Between T.K. and Robert Morrow we are ALL in on the conspiracy. This is a common tactic of the nutty of the nutty. ANYONE that defends the evidence in this case must be in on the conspiracy and with the CIA. OF course Thomas and Robert Morrow can't agree on which steps they are dancing. Thomas's pet theory is that the CIA was behind it, Robert Morrow's pet theory is that LBJ was behind. SVA<<<

I expected this sooner or later, even from S V Anderson, AND even after I'd stated that I respected some of his research, which is true.

Being labeled "nutty" here, simply confirms that the other side has run out of ammo, after a consistent theory has been presented, which refutes its own (pet) "Lone Nut" theory. A point-by-point refutation won't convince them, so what option is left, other than name-calling?

S V Anderson, in any event, poses as an historian. If that's true, I'll quote Jim Garrison's wife (portrayed by Sissy Specek) "Don't you think that's a little out of your jurisdiction?" Since when have purported historians gained such stature as criminal investigators? As I've pointed out in a different blog, their methodological training alone (which I happen to respect) poses a serious, perhaps insurmountable, problem for them. TGK

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2011 8:51:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2011 8:55:08 AM PDT
APK says:
You matter of factly state that there was a hole in the limo windshield, and that Jackie was clearly reaching for skull fragments. But there is no photographic evidence to support those claims, and you know that, don't you. If you had actual photographic evidence to support those non evidence based claims, then the world would be beating at your door to get access to it.

You also talk about EVIDENCE at the scene being planted and destroyed but you have no actual evidence to support those claims do you? Again, if you had any hard evidence to support those claims then the world would be beating a path to your door.

You claim there was an exit wound in the back of JFK's head, but to believe that you have to ignore-
The zapruder film
all the dealey plaza eyewitnesses
all the autopsy material
the three surgeons who conducted the autopsy
the HSCA forensic panel
bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle found in the limo
a complete and total lack of physical and medical evidence of this imaginary frontal shot
etc...

You claim that "Figure 62 in Horne's work" trumps all this evidence, but it really doesn't, does it? If so then the world would have discovered that long before you did.
You "believe" the back of the President's skull is gone. Unfortunately, there is no actual evidence of this and no medical expert who has studied the autopsy materials agrees with you. But you already knew this fact, didn't you? And if the back of the President's skull is gone, there would be no evidence of a rear entry wound. But you already know that there is evidence of one, and only one entry wound in JFK's head don't you? and that entry wound is in the back. The
autopsy report and the photos and X-rays prove that fact beyond all
possible doubt.

"I believe Oswald never fired a rifle that day."
That non evidence based "belief" puts you square in the world of hard core buffdom. In this fantasy world Oswald didn't own a rifle, the backyard photos were faked, the zapruder film was faked, and it was Oswald in the TSBD doorway, not Lovelady.
You claim to be a serious researcher, but serious researchers don't believe" those silly things, do they?

You claim to be a serious conspiracy researcher, but most serious conspiracy researchers acknowledge a rear shot caused the exit wound we see on the zapruder film. They propose theories about two head shots, but you don't even do that.

Finally, if the zapruder film doesn't show an exit wound above the right ear, what does it show? What did the Dealey plaza witnesses see if not an exit wound? Why is there zero evidence on the zapruder film and zero dealey plaza witnesses to support your theory?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2011 10:00:07 AM PDT
"I simply disagree, but I suspect we listen to different sources. I trust mine"

Of course you listen to different sources. You listen to sources with NO expertise in photographic examination. Quoting Sissy I repeat YOUR quote, "They are a little out of their jurisdiction here." Your source is Douglas Horne, a noted conspiracy kook who has been a devoted theorist his entire adult life. I listen to noted, recognized photographic experts with extensive training in determining when a photograph has been altered. They employ stereoscopic examination of photogrphics to prove beyond to resonable people (which excludes you) that the autopsy photographs show absolutely no evidence of tampering or forgery.

You listen to Douglas Horne who has never once stated that he has ANY qualificati9ons to determine if a photographic has been altered or not. SImply stated he doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to re-touching photographs. But you choose to listen to him because you like what he says, not because he is certified or accurate, but because his claims support your suspicions of a conspiracy and cover-up. This is what I learned in becoming an historian--rely only on reliable sources. When it comes to the photogrphic evidence there is NOT ONE recognized photographic expert in the United States that believes the autopsy photographs or Zapruder film has been altered in any way (YOU certainly can't produce any such expert can you Thomas?) But that doesn't bother you at all because you selectively to believe any nut that makes claims that agree with your silly and unfounded theories. That is why you and I will never see eye to eye on this. Our eyes will never meet since my feet are firmly planted on the grounds of reality and you are floating around in the conspiracy atmosphere with your feet and logic in the clouds.

Posted on Apr 3, 2011 12:02:56 PM PDT
Albert Doyle says:
APK: " And of course, the sealed-chamber design of the C2766 would preclude a positive result. "

You couldn't be more wrong. The Carcano was a notoriously poorly-machined rifle that had to be refurbished before being sold to the American buyers. Many exploded upon being shot. When FBI agent Turner realized the investigation wasn't being done honestly he went and tested a Carcano with FBI volunteers. He found it was a very leaky rifle that coated 7 out of 7 FBI testers in extensive nitrate residue. Turner's tests proved that no volunteer who fired the Carcano could avoid serious nitrate residue on their cheek. Deniers try to answer this by dismissing ALL paraffin tests as unreliable but common sense tells you that doesn't apply in this instance, nor does it come anywhere near answering what was proven. Oswald's paraffin cast proved to have less trace materials on the interface surface than it did in the cast materials, which would be impossible for anyone who had fired a rifle - even with face washing.

Fetzer shows that a lightly colored area corresponding to the exact location of the missing rear head portion was located in Zapruder frame 374.

A silencer could have been used in the Dal-Tex Building.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2011 12:36:06 PM PDT
>>>You claim that "Figure 62 in Horne's work" trumps all this evidence, but it really doesn't, does it?<<<

It actually does. What you are attempting here is variant of the Argument from Intimidation - attempting to get me to agree to invalidate what I can plainly observe with my own eyes. It won't work. Others who peruse these writings will see YOU for WHAT YOU ARE - a mere Warren Commission Apologist, who demands that we overlook what we can plainly see in the surviving photographs.

You raise the objection about how the Dealey Plaza witnesses couldn't have seen JFK's rear exit wound, and I previously countered. Your raising it again here is dishonest, because you ignore my earlier response. The fact that you don't understand that it succeeds as a refutation is YOUR problem.

Look at the other shots taken from Kennedy's side. You're clearly attempting to use the Argument from Intimidation here. DON'T EVER profess to tell me what I can or can't plainly see with my own eyes.

I could compose an item-by-item refutation of your allegations, which have little substance, aside from name-calling, and contain factual errors. However, I've concluded that in your case, it is a waste of time, because of your pattern of evasion, which is already evident. I'm sure others have noticed it besides me. So I'll confine myself to the observation that you refuse to grasp the import of an autopsy photograph, and instead attack the character of the man (Horne) whose work it appears in. In almost the same body of text you dismiss Malcom Kilduff's indication of where the entry wound occurred. So you are both selective AND evasive. Further discussion is therefore pointless. If you want to call that a "win," go ahead. Others here can see what has happened.
TGK

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2011 2:34:09 PM PDT
And your comments on this post reveal the weakness of your position Thomas. YOU choose to believe you own eyes and ignore the scientific studies conducted with stereoscopic matching of various autopsy photographs that prove conclusively to scientific minds and objective researchers that there is absolutely no evidence that ANY of the autopsy photographs were forged, altered, or doctored in any way. You are much like a little boy who, after watching a magic performance, argues that he will believe his own eyes and believe that the magicisn flew over the audience without the use of strings or supporting materials. To better educated minds they know that a person cannot fly without some sort of supporting appratus, but you are unmoved, "I KNOW what I saw and I saw the Amazing Bladini actually FLY over my head and I never saw any wires. Don't EVER profess to tell me what I can or can't plainly see with my own eyes."

Of course when that child gets older and reads more and learns more of the science behind human flight or levitation he later learns that his own eyes were NOT enough to determined the truth. If our eyes were all we needed to determine photographic forgeries then all forgery experts would use to ply their science is their own eyes. To those that don't really understand what it takes to forge photographs (like you Thomas) you believe it is possible to do this without leaving behind any traces of the alteration. But sadly, your ignorance in this topic tricks you into believing your own eyes and thus making silly and groundless claims.

You are completely right...further discussion is therefore pointless. The parent sees no need to continue to argue with the child that the Great Bandini cannot fly without help.

Hopefully as you read more on this topic in the future you will understand that the lack of evidence proves no photographic doctoring.

Of course such a hope on my part is pointless since you will NEVER read anything that challenges your firmly entrench superstition that the autopsy photographs were doctored. But rest assured that the studies are already out there and they ahve already been conducted...you simply choose to ignore their findings because they destroy your superstitious beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2011 3:46:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2011 6:01:44 PM PDT
"And your comments on this post reveal the weakness of your position Thomas. YOU choose to believe you own eyes and ignore the scientific studies conducted with stereoscopic matching of various autopsy photographs that prove conclusively to scientific minds and objective researchers that there is absolutely no evidence that ANY of the autopsy photographs were forged, altered, or doctored in any way. You are much like a little boy who, after watching a magic performance, argues that he will believe his own eyes and believe that the magicisn flew over the audience without the use of strings or supporting materials. To better educated minds they know that a person cannot fly without some sort of supporting appratus, but you are unmoved, `I KNOW what I saw and I saw the Amazing Bladini actually FLY over my head and I never saw any wires. Don't EVER profess to tell me what I can or can't plainly see with my own eyes.'"
{This very patronizing response from SVA ignores the fact that his own "educational" background - e.g. purportedly that of an historian - disposes him to rely mostly on conventional documents and records, and look askance upon research and sources that fail to support his conventional explanation(s), such as they are. Earlier, I stated that such a background is not well suited to solving crimes, something over which he remains silent. As an epistemologist with an educational background comparable to his, I critiqued theories of knowledge, and know what I'm talking about, thank you.}

"Hopefully as you read more on this topic in the future you will understand that the lack of evidence proves no photographic doctoring."{From what I've seen so far, that will happen when Hell freezes over. Once again, I note your insulting and patronizing tone. While it offends me, it doesn't scare me. I know posturing when I encounter it, and your claims are as hollow and pretentious as anything I've seen. I entertained hopes of something better from you. So this is disappointing. But it doesn't come as a surprise. Your post here largely consists of a more subtle form of character attack. The balance consists of simple denials, which aren't much of an argument. So I don't reproduce it here, since it doesn't warrant a response. I'm sure others will see all this as well. BOTH you and APK are on IGNORE, as of now. TGK}

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2011 3:59:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2011 4:02:47 PM PDT
APK says:
Albert-
Are you talking about the DPD diphenylamine procedure, or NAA done by the FBI. Guinn wrote the FBI NAA test was "thwarted by the fact that the casts were badly contaminated, essentially as much Ba and Sb being found on the outside surfaces of the casts as on the inside surfaces--which had been in contact with Oswald's skin. The right cheek cast, if it had not been contaminated by improper handling, might have established that Oswald had recently fired a rifle."
Guinn also did some paraffin tests with the LAPD using a carcano and noted that "the diphenylamine results were useless."

Conspiracy buffs have been bringing up Oswald's paraffin tests since the 60's. Are we supposed to throw out the mountain of physical and medical evidence that proves Oswald was the shooter, just because of a notoriusly unreliable test that produces both false positives AND false negatives? After the assassination the FBI conducted paraffin tests using Oswald's rifle and got negative reaction on all casts.
Are you saying someone else used Oswald's rifle that day?

"A silencer could have been used in the Dal-Tex Building."
Pure speculation and conjecture has its place, but not here. One could say that aliens shot JFK. There's basically about as much evidence of that as there is of a Dal-Tex building shooter.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Jfk Assassination forum
Participants:  7
Total posts:  48
Initial post:  Mar 9, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions