From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head wounds
Keywords: Head wounds
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:20:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <14APR199216153781@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
|>mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|>|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
|>|>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|
|
|>|	Do you expect the Parkland doctors' statements to agree perfectly
|>|	with Bethseda and the photos of the body?
|
|>That is irrelevent. I would expect that statements at the time of their
|>observations would aggree with the photos and x-rays, if they say that the
|>photos corrospond to what they say. They don't.
|
|	Once again, the only four doctors who reviewed all of the
|	photos say that the photos in the National Archives show
|	what they remember seeing.

That is false. You continually disregard Jim's article that I attached to the
my response. You have not responded to this, and have not responded to my
inclusion of it in my article. You simply refuse to look at the evidence, since
it disagrees with your position. 

| So far as I've read of McClelland's
|	statements after reviewing the x-rays, he seems to only have
|	problems with the x-rays, and not the photos. I've started to
|	sift though the various Parkland staff member comments on
|	the varios pictures and x-rays they saw, and I find that
|	each member objects to one or another photo, but not the
|	whole body of photos. As for McClelland, I have yet to find an
|	instance where *he* denounces the NOVA program as 'a coverup'.

Have you read High Treason, the source of Jim's source on McClelland, and the
KPIX broadcast?

I am glad you admit that the Parkland people do find problems with the photos.

|>For exact differences in the length of the wound, see my
|>article to Joel or Lifton. There are also other differences, for example, the
|>jaggedness of the wound, and it's location.
|
|	What's wrong with the wound's location. It seems to me to be in
|	the "lower third of the anterior neck" in the photo.
	
I do not have lifton anymore, since it was recalled. You said you read it. The
Parkland throat wound was described as below the second trachea ring, and at
Bethesda it was lowerd to the third. Second, the two wounds along the trachea
were merged into a single wound.

|>|	Apparently, Crenshaw was a bit-player in the drama at Parkland.
|
|>Crenshaw's statement is valuable because it corroborates eyewitness testimony
|>and other statements made at Parkland. He is completely credible in my book.
|
|	Which statements made at Parkland? The location of the head
|	wound? Moot point. Entry vs. Exit wounds? On what basis does
|	Crenshaw place the entry wound in the front? Is he really
|	qualified to judge? Is he some sort of forensics expert?

I really get tired of typing this all into the computer. Didn't you read my
statements on Crenshaw? Basically he backs up every description of the wound
given by Parkland and the doctors there. Importantly, we get to see his
reactions to the photograph, as well as statements from Dr. Baxter. We also get
to see the size of the tracheotomy/tracheosotmy tube and flange, and see that
it is indeed small.

The parkland people say the throat wound was clean, small wound
and the Bethesda and photos have a jagged, larger and lower wound. Crenshaw
says it looked like a entrance wound. Baxter also said it looked like an
entrance wound. At Parkland, everyone (except Jenkins) thought it was an
entrance wound. Perry, in a discussion with Hurt, said it had an abraision
collar.

Why do I keep typing in the same thing over and over?

....
|	... Since
|	other doctors seem to have remembered Crenshaw being in
|	the ER, I don't think that he's lying about being there;
|	however, it is worth noting that he wasn't exactly the
|	Dr Kildare that his publisher would like you to believe. 

Well that's important information to fill up an article with.

|>Mmmm. I think we are certainly talking about seperate things. The photograph
|>was released to the public to convince us of a certain bullet path . The
|>photograph, in that sense, is a forgery. It is a forgery in that it pretends to
|>show the condition of the body as it did not exist. I repeat, there is no
|>reason to reconstruct the head to show a hole in the scalp. 
|
|	Again, I ask what was exactly "reconstructed"? All the autopsists
|	did was keep the flap of scalp over part of the head wound.

First, it was not Humes who did this, and who knows if what as autopsist or
morturary specialist. The skin was tight over the skull, and that must have be
reconstructed. How did the bones stay together? THe morturary people said they
cemented in Kennedy's skull, wrapping the scalp over it... 
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)