From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head wounds
Keywords: Head wounds
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:19:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <11APR199214144298@zeus.tamu.edu> mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
|>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
|
|>Mitchell writes that the Parkland people say the photos are what they saw.
|
|>I say this is irrelevent since:
|
|>1. The parkland people saw different wounds. The only wound that makes sense in
|>   this context is the head exit wound.
|
|	The only "different" wound they saw was the quarter-inch hole
|	to the left of the gaping wound.

The Parkland people did not see the so-called entry wound that is visible in
the photograph showing the rear of the president's head.

|	Once again, becuase the Parkland doctors didn't see it doesn't
|	mean that it was there.

Then why ask them if the photos of wounds they did not see corrospond to what
they saw? I don't understand your attack on this simple point #1. The only
wound that Bethesda and Parkland and the Autopsy photos saw together is the
head wound. Thus, even if the Parkland people said "The photos are what we saw"
that can only be relevent for comparisons of Bethesda with one single wound.

|>2. It only says that the Parkland people--except for Crenshaw--do not want
|>   to admit of conspiracy. Comparisons of their statements at the time reveal
|>   differences. See my reply to Joel or Bruce's reply to some article.
|
|	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. My point is
that the Parkland doctors had a choice: either agree with the physical
evidence, and admit their own recollections as per their statements at the time
were mistaken, or think there is a conspiracy. At the time, some of them chose
to do the former.  Actually, most of them  didn't, if we look more deeply into
their statements. See Jim's article below.

|>3. The throat wound is indeed different--as Crenshaw says. Oddly, Dr. Baxter
|>   said that the front neck wound and the back wound could be both entrance
|>   wounds. It is unknown if the Parkland doctors saw the throat wound
|>   recently. Yet they did explain to Lifton that the throat wound was precisley
|>   1-2 inches, and not 6-7 inches. 

That is my error. 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.

|	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.
The reason you don't believe him is becuase you simply don't believe in 
eyewitness testimony and corroborative statements when it does not support your
view. See my reply to Joel.

|	From Oswald's operative record, Crenshaw's responsibility was
|	to insert IV tubes. He was a junior member of the team. In
|	fact, several of the other doctors at Parkland don't remember
|	Crenshaw being in the ER when JFK lay dying.

Are you supposed to be making a point here? And what is the source of your
information?

|>Mitchell asks about if explanations change from Parkland, Bethesda, FBI, WC and
|>then the autopsy stuff. It is clear Mitchell has not read Lifton clearly. Let
|>me refer Mitchell to 
|
|	I read Lifton over a yar ago, and I did so clearly. While I may
|	not remember every little detail, I know what Lifton said.
|	You mistake my being unimpressed with Lifton's notions  and
|	overemphases with my not reading him carefully.

You clearly did not follow him, as is quite evident in not noticing the
differences of the length of the throat wound from Dallas to Bethesda. I am not
going to go over it all again. I really don't have time to keep putting in his
stuff.


|	Again, I find that Lifton makes too much of what conflicts there
|	are.

|>The question of the authenticity of the x-rays are interesting. McClelland says
|>that there are descrepencies in the x-rays. Mitchell says that McClelland needs
|>to see computer enhanced photos. Did he in fact see those? We do not know. Nor
|>do we know what he is referring to if in fact the compter enhancements make
|>a difference. Since the enhancements are widely availble, I do not see why
|>McClelland did not see them. 
|
|	I've read McClelland's statements about the x-rays (in Summers'
|	book _Conspiracy_, among others), and his statements indicate
|	that he had not, in fact, seen the enhancements. His statements
|	about the missing right eye socket are the key. In the enhancements,
|	the right eye socket can be seen with little difficulty.

I am not trying to discount your evidence. I am merely sayind we not know if
McCLelland saw the computer enhancements or not, and what he would think of
them if he saw them. Again, one is found in lifton, published nearly 11 years
ago.  Untill we get some more evidence on McClelland, I would still question
the authenticity of the X-rays.

|>Finally, there is a question of the "fake" photo. The photo, as released,
|>supports drawings such as Lattimer, page 216 which shows an entry at the back
|>, and and exit towards the front, leaving intact the rear part of the head. 
|>However, the photo is a fake or reconstruction in the sense that the scalp
|>has been folded over to show where an entry wound might be located. Mitchell
|>argues that the photo was not ill-intentioned, and merely wanted to show
|>the location of the wound. Yet there is no reason to reconstruct the head to 
|>show the hole in the scalp.  
|
|	Someone pulled the flap of scalp over the wound. This becomes
|	"reconstruction" in David Wright's words. At one time, according
|	to David's pen, this made the picture a "forgery". Reconstruction
|	is far too strong a word. Recalling the head x-rays, the known photos
|	of the head wounds, the descriptions by Bethseda, Parkland,
|	HSCA, et al, I believe that the flap of skin would have to 
|	be pulled out to clearly show the wound and its location.
|	The small hole looks to be quite close to the major wound.
|
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. And who told them
to shoot that picture and reconstruct the head like that? Certainly not Humes,
who did not see a wound that far up. 

|>Also the location of the wound is not consistent
|>with Hume's description of the entry  wound. He apparently not only had nothing
|>to do with the photos, but the WR, who add access to autopsy photos, let
|>pictures of Humes' lower entrance wound be published in the report. 
|
|	I don't think that Humes saw the photos until 1978. When he saw
|	the Dox drawing of the photo of the back of JFK's head, he claimed
|	that the photo *did* show the wound he remembered. However, he
|	continued to claim that he made the right measurement.
	
When he saw the Dox drawing of the photo in the back of the head he originally
attributed it a spot of blod, and that the entry hole was low where the peice
of tissue was. Although Humes later recanted under pressure from the HSCA, in 
an odd way, Finck and Boswell did not. It is things like this that make me
believe you did not clearly read Lifton.

I feel like reposting my whole post again, since you apparently cannot
understand it. Clearly there are different people seeing different things and
having different explanations. The full list of discrepencies is given in Jim's
post below. These do not cover all the descrepencies, some of which is my reply
to Joel. 

in article armstron@cs.arizona.edu (Jim Armstrong)
Subject: Parkland 4 and other head wound witnesses
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:09:36 GMT

writes:


There were 4 doctors who viewed the photos and x-rays on the NOVA
program: Drs. McClelland, Peters, Jenkins, and Dulany.  9 Parkland
doctors refused to participate on the program.  McClelland has since 
denounced the show, calling it a coverup (see the Afterword to _High 
Treason_).  He testified to the Warren Commission and, more recently, 
said on KRON and British TV documentaries that the rear of the head was 
blasted out and that the cerebellum fell out onto the table.  Dr. Dulany 
earlier had told the Boston Globe that the Dox drawings of the back of the 
head autopsy photo conflicted with how he remembered it.  His account may 
be uncredible because the Warren Commission reported that he only worked 
on Governor Connally.  Peters and Jenkins are also on record as stating
that the wound in the back of the head was an exit wound.  Jenkins also
saw the cerebellum through the hole in the back of the head.  Curiously,
NOVA didn't ask the doctors about entrance and exit wounds.  Certainly,
this isn't enough to regard the NOVA program as "gospel" with respect to
the head wounds in light of the other evidence and eyewitness accounts.


These are some of the witnesses who consistently described the 
back of the head completely blown out as a fist-sized exit wound:
(additions to this list of witnesses welcome!)

	Nurse Audrey Bell	- Parkland Hospital
	Nurse Patricia Hutton	- Parkland Hospital
        Nurse Diana Bowron	- Parkland Hospital
	Nurse Doris Nelson	- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. McClelland 		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Peters 		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr.  Carrico		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Coy			- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Alcin 		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Perry 		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Clark  		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Dulany		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Jones 		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Crenshaw 		- Parkland Hospital
	Jackie Kennedy
	Phil Willis and his daughter - motorcade witnesses
	Beverly Oliver 		- motorcade witness
	Clint Hill		- Secret Service Agent
	Jerrol Custer		- Bethesda x-ray technician
        Floyd Riebe 		- Bethesda photographic technician
	Paul O'Connor		- Bethesda autposy technician

Some of those witnesses who have seen the autopsy photos and x-rays
and have found them to be completely incompatible with what they saw:

	Nurse Doris Nelson	- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Coy			- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. McClelland 		- Parkland Hospital
	Dr. Crenshaw 		- Parkland Hospital
        Floyd Riebe 		- Bethesda photographic technician
	Jerrol Custer		- Bethesda x-ray technician
	Paul O'Connor		- Bethesda autposy technician

Yes, the very same men who took the photos have since denounced
them as fakes.  In addition, there exists no witness in Dallas
who saw any wound on the top of JFK's head as those photos show.
Don't you think this warrants a little further investigation as to 
the location of the head wounds?

Sources: David Lifton, _Best Evidence_
	 Groden & Livingstone, _High Treason_
	 KRON-TV Interviews, San Francisco
	 Vincent Salandria "The Warren Report ?"
----article ends------

Some more discrepencies:

Burkley told Hurt that Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy. Would
not elaborate. Burkley was the only physician at both autopsies.

Fink, Boswell did not think photos showed entrance of
rear head wound. However, they did report, along with Humes, a lower rear back
wound that may or may not have been consistent with the photo we see of the
back wound.

Fink, Boswell and Humes all put their finger in the wound, and tested it with a
metal probe. They determined the entry as 40 degrees and stopping after one or
two inches. The WR, on the other hand,  concluded that there was a path 
through the body.  The HSCA, on the other hand,  determined the angle of 
entry as *comming from below* the president. The Clark Panel determined that 
the wound was too small to put a finger in. 
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "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)